#3 Rates of Bi-directional versus Uni-directional Intimate Partner Violence
Across Samples, Sexual Orientations, and Race/Ethnicities:
A Comprehensive Review
Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Tiffany A. Misra, Candice Selwyn, & Martin L. Rohling
Full article available in Partner Abuse, Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012 1(Article available for free at: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/pa)
One hotly debated topic within the field of intimate partner violence is the degree towhich IPV can be understood as primarily a unidirectional versus bi-directional phenomena.
Early studies of IPV predominantly focused on men’s perpetration of violence while women’s
involvement and/or participation in IPV has been largely neglected (Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, &Daly, 1992). However, researchers have increasingly challenged this notion and studies havefound that women can and do perpetrate violence at similar or higher rates than men (Archer,2000). Such findings have led to the gender symmetry versus asymmetry debate. Resolution ofthis debate has important prevention and intervention implications. In the current study, acomprehensive review of the literature was conducted and 50 studies (n = 48 empirical studies; n= 1 meta-analysis; n = 1 book chapter) that reported rates of bi-directional versus uni-directional
violence were uncovered using a variety of search engines and key terms. Included studies were
published in 1990 or later, appeared in peer-reviewed journals, and contained empirical data.
These studies were then categorized by the nature of the sample they assessed as follows: large
population samples (Table 1), smaller community samples (Table 2), University/school samples(Table 3), treatment seeking samples (Table 4), legal/criminal justice related samples (Table 5),
and samples assessing the relationships of gay, lesbian, and bi-sexual individuals (GLB) (Table
7, in published manuscript only). Each table contains the rates of bi-directional and unidirectional violence. As reported, among uni-directional violence rates, male-to-female (MFPV)
and female-to-male (FMPV) percentages were included or were derived on the basis of datacontained within the article. Also, in the corresponding publication, specific additional results
were calculated to determine the overall rate of IPV in each sample type. These rates were thenweighted by the sample sizes from which they were derived. All studies included in thispublished review were also entered into an on-line summary table that includes the full reference
for the study, the sample size and its characteristics, the study method and design, the measures
Copyright © 2012 Springer Publishing Company, LLC · http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.e3

1

used, and the results relevant to the question of the commonality of bi-directional versus unidirectional violence.
According to the results presented in the manuscript that corresponds with this on-line
table, among epidemiological/population samples, the average weighted rate of IPV reported was
16.3% (22.1% unweighted). Using weighted averages, among those reporting IPV, 57.9% of the
IPV reported was bi-directional. Of the remaining 42.1% that was reported as uni-directional
IPV, 13.8% was MFPV, 28.3% was FMPV, and the ratio of uni-directional FMPV to MFPV was
2.05 weighted (2.02 unweighted). Among community samples, the average weighted rate of IPVreported was 47.0%. Using weighted averages, among those reporting IPV, 59.6% was bidirectional. Of the remaining 40.4% that was reported as uni-directional IPV, 17.5% was MFPV,
22.9% was FMPV, and the ratio of uni-directional FMPV to MFPV was 1.30 weighted (1.98
unweighted). Among school and college samples, the average weighted rate of IPV reported was
39.2%. Using weighted averages, among those reporting IPV, 51.9% was bi-directional. Of theremaining 48.1% that was reported as uni-directional IPV, 16.2% was MFPV, 31.9% was
FMPV, and the ratio of uni-directional FMPV to MFPV was 1.96 weighted (2.18 unweighted).
Among legal or female-oriented clinical/treatment seeking samples that were not associated withthe military, the average weighted rate of IPV reported was 70.6%. Using weighted averages,
among those reporting IPV, 72.3% was bi-directional. Of the remaining 27.7% that was reported
as uni-directional IPV, 13.3% was MFPV, 14.4% was FMPV, and the ratio of uni-directional
FMPV to MFPV was 1.09 weighted (1.07 unweighted). Finally, among IPV treatment samples
within the U.S. Military and at-risk males samples, the average weighted rate of IPV reported
was 99.9%%. Using weighted averages, among those reporting IPV, 39.3% was bi-directional.
Of the remaining 60.7% that was reported as uni-directional IPV, 43.4% was MFPV, 17.3% was
FMPV, and the ratio of uni-directional FMPV to MFPV was .40 weighted (.33 unweighted).
When using unweighted overall rates of IPV, the samples differed significantly. Followup comparisons revealed that the overall rate of IPV in school samples did not differ
significantly from large population and community samples. All other comparisons of overall
rates of violence revealed significant differences with the epidemiological studies yielding thelowest reported rates of IPV and the legal/criminal justice samples yielding the highest rates.
When examining rates of bi-directional versus unidirectional IPV, the unweighted bi-directional
IPV rates ranged from 49.2% to 69.7% whereas the uni-directional rates ranged from 30.3% to2

50.4%. Bi-directional IPV is a prevalent phenomenon. These findings held even though theprevalence of violence differed greatly among the samples studied. This robust result suggeststhat the role of women in violent relationships is important to consider, even if all aspects ofwomen’s perpetration of IPV are not symmetrical to men’s perpetration of IPV. Moreover,bidirectional IPV was the most common type of violence for all sample types except thelegal/treatment seeking samples of military or at-risk men. However, even among this sample
type the uni-directional rate was only slightly higher as compared to the rate of bi-directional
violence (50.4% vs. 49.2%, respectively). This again suggests that clinicians and researchers inall settings should be routinely assessing for both perpetration and victimization.
Furthermore, statistical analyses indicated that among the five sample types, theunweighted percentages of bi-directional as compared to uni-directional IPV did not differ
significantly. Thus, rates of uni-directional and bi-directional IPV were similar across all fivesample types. However, significant differences did emerge within the group of unidirectional
IPV perpetrators, such that a significantly higher rate of uni-directional MFPV (38%
unweighted) and a significantly lower rate of FMPV (12.4% unweighted) was found among themilitary treatment/legal samples of males as compared to all other sample types. Post hoc
analyses revealed that these rates did not differ from the female-oriented treatment/legal samples.
But, in female-oriented treatment/legal samples, the rate of FMPV (15.7% unweighted) was
significantly lower as compared to the rate of FMPV in every other sample type. Thus, the ratioof uni-directional female-to-male (FMPV) compared to male-to-female (MFPV) IPV differedsignificantly among samples with higher rates of female-perpetrated unidirectional violencefound in four of the five sample types considered. A higher ratio of male-to-female
unidirectional violence was only found in criminal justice/legal studies that relied on police
reports of IPV perpetration and/or in samples drawn from the U.S. military. Competing
explanations for the differing gender-based ratios were offered in the discussion section of the
published manuscript. These considerations need to be systematically varied and tested
empirically in order to fully understand differences in the reported expression of IPV acrosssamples and settings.
In further exploratory analyses, differences in the extent of bi-directionality in theexpression of IPV were not found across samples of gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual individuals;
however, among a limited number of studies, rates of bi-directional violence were found to vary3significantly by race/ethnicity. Specifically, only 50.9% of IPV was bi-directional according toWhite reporters, as compared to 49.0% among Hispanic reporters, and 61.8% among Black
reporters. Significantly different ratios of FMPV to MFPV were also obtained across the ethnic
groups such that the ratio was 2.27 for Black reporters, 2.26 for White reporters, and 1.34 for
Hispanic reporters. However, it must be noted that these ratios differ dramatically from thosereported above when the sample is drawn from the military (0.61 for Black reporters, 0.50 for
White reporters, and 0.00 for Hispanic reporters). These findings warrant additional
investigation.
In conclusion, our results demonstrate the amount of overall IPV differed significantly
among samples, but the percent that was categorized as bi-directional did not. This indicates thatbi-directional violence is a common IPV pattern and suggests that women play a larger role in
the occurrence of IPV than previously thought. Such findings have considerable implications forassessment, legal, intervention, and preventive efforts. It is suggested that if one resolution of thegender symmetry/asymmetry debate is to argue that there are subtypes of male and female
intimate partner violence perpetrators, or that there are different patterns of violence amongst
relationships characterized by IPV (Johnson, 2005; Johnson, 2006), researchers and clinicians
will need to work to together to determine how to reliably and meaningfully make these
determinations in ways that will facilitate our ability to effectively prevent and treat all types of
IPV.

4About the Authors

Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Ph.D. is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at the
University of South Alabama. Dr. Langhinrichsen-Rohling earned her undergraduate degree in
Psychology from Brown University and her M.S. and Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the
University of Oregon. Dr. Langhinrichsen-Rohling completed her clinical internship at the Palo
Alto V.A. and the Stanford Medical Center. She also served as an NIH post-doctoral fellow at
The State University of New York Stony Brook where she conducted research, treated distressedand violent couples, volunteered at a local women’s shelter, and participated on a NIMH grant tocompare the effectiveness of gender-specific versus conjoint treatment for intimate partner
violence. Dr. Langhinrichsen-Rohling is an author on over 100 peer reviewed publications andhas received many awards both for her research and for her teaching and mentorship of students.
Her IPV research has been supported by OJJDP for many years; however, her current researchon couple and family resiliency is funded by SAMSHA and NIH.

Contact:
jlr@usouthal.edu
Tiffany Misra, M.S. is a 4th year doctoral student in the Combined-Integrated ClinicalCounseling Program at the University of South Alabama and is expected to graduate in 2013.
Ms. Misra earned her undergraduate degree from the University of Georgia and her M.S. in
Applied Psychology from the University of South Alabama. Before pursuing graduate training,
Ms. Misra worked in the public health field predominantly with non-profit mental healthorganizations. While Ms. Misra has worked on research projects that include a variety of topics,
currently her specific research interests are in the areas of intimate partner violence, nonsuicidal
self-injurious behaviors, and issues concerning social justice. Ms. Misra has been conducting
research with Dr. Langhinrichsen-Rohling for 5 years. Ms and her Master’s Thesis investigatedthe perceptions of dating violence by comparing attributions of responsibility within the context
of victim-committed sexual versus emotional infidelity. For her dissertation, she is investigating
the Interpersonal-Psychological Theory of Suicidal Behavior among self-injurers, specifically5concentrating on the characteristics of self-injury that may increase an individual’s acquired
capability for suicide.
Contact:
tmiff@aol.com

Candice Selwyn, B.A. received her undergraduate degree in Psychology in 2010 from the
University of South Alabama, where she is currently a second year student pursuing a Master of
Science degree in Applied Psychology. Over the past three years, Candice has actively pursued
research topics associated with her interest in aggressive behaviors. Specifically, she has been
involved in research projects investigating issues such as intimate partner violence, psychopathy,
non-suicidal self harm, suicide proneness, and suicidal behaviors. She is currently in the processof applying for doctoral programs in both Clinical and Counseling Psychology and ultimately
aspires to obtain a career in academia.

Contact:
cns@jaguar1.usouthal.edu

Martin Rohling, Ph.D. received his Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of
Alabama. He is currently a full Professor of Psychology at the University of South Alabama andalso is the Director of Clinical Training for USA’s Clinical and Community Psychology Ph.D.
programs. Dr. Rohling is an expert in brain functioning and behavior. He is a renowned
neuropsychologist with numerous empirical publications. He contributed statistical expertise to
the current project.

Contact:
mrohling@usouthal.edu

6PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Abbreviations:
IPV: Intimate Partner Violence
MFPV/UM: Male to Female perpetrated violence
FPP: Female primary perpetrator (type of mutual violence)
SYM: symmetrical

FMPV/UF: Female to Male perpetrated violence
MPV: Mutual Partner Violence
MPP: Male primary perpetrator (type of mutual violence)

Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Reference
Stets, J. E. & Straus,
M. A. (1989). The
marriage license as ahitting license: A
comparison ofassaults in dating,cohabitating, andmarried couples. In
M.A. Straus & R. J.
Gelles (Eds.),
Physical violence inAmerican families:
Risk factors andadaptations toviolence in 8,145
families (pp. 33-52).
New Jersey,
Transaction Books.

n
n=
5,005
marriedcouplesn = 237
cohabitatingcouplesn = 526
datingcouples

Sample Characteristics
Sample type:
Dating couples from a
University sample alongwith Married andCohabitating couples
from the National
Family Violence
Resurvey, which was
conducted in 1985
Couple status:
Dating, cohabitating,and married
Race:
N/R
Age:
NR
Income/SES:NR
Geography:
Large Midwestern
University and National
sampleMethods/Design
Cross-sectional design
The CTS was used toassess violence

Results
Percentage of IPV within the total sample =16%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 84%
Bidirectional:
Overall rate of Bidirectional IPV within
total sample = 7.8%
Rate of Bidirectional IPV within IPV
sample = 48.8%
Among dating couples, rate of
Bidirectional IPV within IPV sample =50.0%
Among cohabitating couples, rate of
Bidirectional IPV within IPV sample =52.4%
Among married couples, rate of
Bidirectional IPV within IPV sample =48.2%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within

1

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
the total sample = 8.2%
Percentage of MFPV within the total
sample = 4.7%
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 3.5%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 51.2%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 21.6%
Percentage FMPV within the IPV sample =29.6%
Among dating couples, rate of FMPV
within IPV sample = 39.4%%
Among cohabitating couples, rate of
FMPV within IPV sample = 26.9%
Among married couples, rate of FMPV
within IPV sample = 28.6%
Among dating couples, rate of MFPV
within IPV sample = 10.5%
Among cohabitating couples, rate of
MFPV within IPV sample = 20.7%
Among married couples, rate of MFPV
within IPV sample = 23.2%

2

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Umberson, D.,Anderson, K., Glick,J., & Shapiro, A.
(1998). Domestic
violence, personal
control, and gender.
Journal of Marriage
and Family, 60, 442452. Retrieved from:http://www.jstor.org/stable/353860

n=
5,939
Men =
2,660
Women
= 3,297

Sample type:
Large population sample
From National Surveyof Families andHouseholds (NSFH2)
Couple status:
N/R
Race:
N/R
Age:
M age = 44.51 yrs
Income/SES:
Men annual income =$28,438
Women annual income= $12,909
Geography:
Nationally
representative
sample of the 48
contiguous UnitedStatesFace-to-face interviews
were conducted with
10,008individuals for the
NSFH2. Data presented
here are from a
subsample of individuals
within the NSFH2 over
the age of 18 years who
were involved in ongoing
relationships. A single
item was used to assess
for the occurrence ofviolence during anargument in therelationship.

Percentage of IPV within the total sample =7%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 93%
Bidirectional:
Overall rate of Bidirectional IPV within
total sample = 4.3%
Rate of Bidirectional IPV within IPV
sample = 63.8%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 2.4%
Percentage of MFPV within the total
sample = 1.3%
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 1.1%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 36.2%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 20.0%
Percentage FMPV within the IPV sample =
16.2%

3

Other/Summary:-The sample includes 5,538 individuals
who claim that no domestic violenceoccurred in the previous year and 401
individuals who claim that they or theirpartner engaged in acts of domestic
violence during the previous year. 64% (n= 256) of the cases of domestic violence
reported in the NSFH2 involved common
couple violence, 15% (n = 61) involved
respondent-only violence, and 21% (n =PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Kessler, R. C.,
Molnar, B. E., Feurer,
I. D., & Appelbaum,
M. (2001). Patterns
and mental healthpredictors ofdomestic violence inthe United States:
Results from the
National Comorbidity
Survey. International
Journal of Law andPsychiatry, 24(4-5),
487-508.
doi:10.1016/S01602527(01)00080-2

n=
3,537
Men =
1,738
Women
= 1,799

Sample type:
Large population sample
from the National
Comorbidity Survey
Couple status:
Married or cohabitating
couples
Race:
N/R
Income/SES:
N/R
Age:
N/R
Geography:
National study

Cross-sectional design;
Respondents were
sampled using a
multistage area
probability design.
Interviews were carriedout face-to-face in thehomes of respondents.
The response rate was
82.4%. The Part IIinterview phasesubsample, which
included questions about
domestic violence, areused in the current report.
The CTS was used toassess violence.

Percentage of Men reporting IPV within
the total sample = 20.9%
Percentage of Men reporting no IPV within
the total sample = 79.1%
Percentage of Women reporting IPV within
the total sample = 23.9%
Percentage of Women reporting no IPV
within the total sample = 76.1%
Minor Violence:
Percentage of Men reporting victimization= 18.4%
Percentage of Men reporting perpetration =15.4%
Percentage of Women reporting
victimization = 17.4%
Percentage of Women reporting
perpetration = 17.7%
Severe Violence:
Percentage of Men reporting victimization= 5.5%
Percentage of Men reporting perpetration =2.7%
Percentage of Women reporting
victimization = 6.5%
Percentage of Women reporting
perpetration = 6.2%
Bidirectional:
Minor Violence among Women’s report,

4

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
among Men’s report:
Both do same: 10.5%, 11.7%
I do more: 0.5%, 0.9%
Spouse does more: 1.3% , 0.4%
Severe Violence among Women’s report,
Men’s report:
Both do same: 10.5%, 11.7%
I do more: 0.5%, 0.9%
Spouse does more: 1.3%, 0.4%
Unidirectional:
Minor Violence among Women’s report:
Only spouse (MFPV): 5.1%
Only me (FMPV): 5.3%
Neither: 77.1%
Minor Violence among Men’s report:
Only spouse (FMPV): 5.4%
Only me (MFPV): 2.4%
Neither: 79.1%
Severe Violence among Women’s report:
Only spouse (MFPV): 1.9%
Only me (FMPV): 1.6%
Neither: 91.7%
Severe Violence among Men’s report:
Only spouse (FMPV): 3.0%
Only me (MFPV): 0.1%
Neither: 94.3%
5

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Other/Summary:-17.4% of married or cohabiting womenand 18.4% of comparable men in the NCS
reported that they were victims of minor
physical violence perpetrated by theircurrent spouses or partners.
-70.7% of the women who reported minor
violence victimization and exactly the same
percent of comparable men (70.7%) said
that they reciprocated minor violence. A
very similar percent of women who
admitted perpetrating minor violence
reported that their partner reciprocated(69.5%). However, a significantly higher
percent of men who admitted perpetrating
minor violence said that their partnerreciprocated (84.4%, z = 4.4, p < .001).
-The percent of respondents who reported
perpetration of minor violence in theabsence of reciprocation from their spouse
was less than half as large among men(2.4% of the sample) as women (5.3% of
the sample, z= 3.3, p < .001). We also see a genderdifference in reported relative frequency ofminor violence. While the vast majority ofboth women (85.4%) and men (90.0%)
who reported reciprocal minor violence
said that frequency is the same for bothpartners, a significantly higher proportion
6

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Anderson, K. L.
(2002). Perpetrator or
victim? Relationships
between intimate
partner violence andwell being. Journal of
Marriage and Family,64, 851-863. doi:
10.1111/j.17413737.2002.00851.x

n=
7,395
couples
Men =
7,395
Women
= 7,395

Sample type:
Large population sample
Couple status:
Married andcohabitating
Race:
N/R
Income/SES:
N/R
Age:
N/R
Geography:
National Survey of
Families andHouseholds (NSFH-1)

Cross-sectional design;
Single item on self-reportquestionnaire asked
respondents and theirpartners to indicate
whether any of theirarguments became
physical during the pastyear.

of the women than the men said that theirspouse is violent more often than they are(10.6% vs. 3.1%, z = 2.0, p=.046).
-Comparable results were found for severe
violence. The percent of reported women
victims who said that they reciprocate(70.8%) is significantly lower than the
proportion of reported men perpetrators
who said that their partners reciprocate(96.2%, z = 5.0, p ≤ .001). Furthermore, theproportion of reported women perpetrators
who said that their partners reciprocate(74.2%) is significantly higher than the
proportion of reported men victims who
said that they reciprocate (45.5%, z = 4.8, p< .001).
Percentage of IPV within the total sample,
according to men = 10%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample, according to men = 90%
Percentage of IPV within the total sample,
according to women = 9%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample, according to women = 91%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Men reporting Bidirectional
IPV within the total sample = 7%
Percentage of Men reporting Bidirectional
IPV within the IPV sample = 70%

7

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
which covers thecontiguous UnitedStates. Study
oversampled recently
married andcohabitating couples

Percentage of Women reporting
Bidirectional IPV within the total sample =6%
Percentage of Women reporting
Bidirectional IPV within the IPV sample =66.7%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample, as agreed upon by both
men and women = 3%
Endorsement of MFPV within the total
sample = 1%
Endorsement of FMPV within the total
sample = 2%
Overall percentage of men reporting
Unidirectional IPV within the IPV sample= 30%
Percentage of men reporting MFPV within
IPV sample = 20%
Percentage of men reporting FMPV within
IPV sample = 10%
Overall percentage of women reporting
Unidirectional IPV within the IPV sample= 33%
Percentage of women reporting MFPV
within IPV sample = 22%
Percentage of women reporting FMPV8

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
within IPV sample = 11%
Galvan, F. H.,
Collins, R., Kanouse,
D. E., Burnam, M. A.,
Paddock, S. M.,
Beckman, R., &Mitchell, S. R.
(2004). Abuse in theclose relationships ofpeople with HIV.
AIDS and Behavior,
8(4), 441-451. doi:
10.1007/s10461-0047328-z

n=1, 421 ofpeoplewithHIV
Overall
Men =917
Heterosexual
Men =
291
HomoSexual
Men =
626
Women
= 504
51% ofthesamplehad hada closerelations
hip inthe past

Sample type:
Large population sample
from the HCSUS (HIVCost and Services
Utilization Study) study
from 1996-1997
Couple status:
N/R
Race:
51.4% White
32.6% African Am
12.7% Latino
3.4% Other
Income/SES:
0-5,000 = 18.5%
5,001-10,000 = 25.8
10,001-25,000 = 25.3%> 25,000 = 30.5%
Age:
N/R
Geography:
Metropolitan or rural
areas

Cross-sectional design;
Interviews and computerassisted administration of
items modeled after CTS
assessed IPV perpetration
6 months prior toassessment.

Percentage of IPV within the total sample =26.8%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 73.2%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 12.5%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 48%
Unidirectional:
Overall percentage of unidirectional
violence in total sample = 14.3%
Overall percentage of unidirectional
violence in IPV sample = 52%
Percentage reporting perpetration within
the total sample = 20%
Percentage reporting victimization within
the total sample = 19.7%
Other/Summary:-Individuals who reported being African
American, younger, a binge drinker, having
a current drug dependence history, andhaving a psychiatric disorder were more
likely to report being both perpetrators andvictims of abuse.
-Latinos also reporting significantly higher

9

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Caetano, R.,
Ramisetty-Mikler, S.,& Field, C.A. (2005).
Unidirectional andbidirectional intimate
partner violence
among White, Black,and Hispanic couples
in the United States.
Violence and Victims,
20(4), 393-406. doi:
10.1891/vivi.2005.20.
4.393

six
monthsn=1,440couples
Men =
1,440
Women
= 1,440

Sample type:
Large population sample
of adults from 48
continental UnitedStates
Couple status:
Married or cohabitating
Race:
Oversample of Blacks
and Hispanics
38.5% White
24.9% Black
36.6% Hispanic
Income/SES:
N/R
Age:
N/R
Geography:
Contiguous 48 US states

Longitudinal design;
Data presented here arefrom Wave I only (seeSchafer, Caetano, &Clark, 1998 for more
information).
Multistage random
probability community
sample.
1 hour face-to-faceinterviews conducted inparticipant’s home.
The CTS was used toassess violence.

rates of both perpetration and victimization
than did Whites or other ethnicities.
Percentage of IPV within the total sample =25%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 75%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 13%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 50%
Bidirectional IPV by ethnicity within the
total sample:
White 8%
Black 20%
Hispanic 12%
Bidirectional IPV by ethnicity within the
IPV sample:
White 44% (46 of 103)
Black 61% (72 of 118)
Hispanic 45% (63 of 139)
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 12%
Percentage of MFPV within the total
sample = 4%
Percentage of FMPV within the total

10

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
sample = 8%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 50%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 15%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPV = 34%
Unidirectional MFPV by ethnicity within
the total sample:
White 3%Black 3%
Hispanic 3%
Unidirectional FMPV by ethnicity within
the total sample:
White 7%
Black 10%Hispanic 9%
Unidirectional MFPV by ethnicity within
the IPV sample:
White 17% (17 of 100 white IPV couples)
Black 8% (9 of 118 Black IPV couples)
Hispanic 19% (27 of 139 Hispanic IPV
couples)
Unidirectional FMPV by ethnicity within
the IPV sample:
White 38% (39 of 103)
Black 31% (36 of 118)
11

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Hispanic 35% (49 of 139)

Field, C. A., &Caetano, R. (2005).
Longitudinal model
predicting mutual
partnerviolence among
White, Black, andHispanic couples in

n=
1,136
couples
Men =
1,025
Women
= 1,025

Sample type:
Large population sample
Participants constituted
a multistage random
probability sample
representative of
married and cohabiting
couples in the 48

Cross-sectional design;
Interview asked aboutchild abuse, parental
violence, alcohol
consumption.
The CTS was used toassess violence.
12

Other/Summary:-Unidirectional MFPV occurs at about halfof the rate of Unidirectional FMPV
-Among Black couples, the rate of
Bidirectional partner violence is two times
that of Unidirectional FMPV and about six
times higher than unidirectional MFPV
-About a fifth of the Black couples
compared to about a tenth of White andHispanic couples report that they are
involved in a relationship characterized by
Bidirectional partner violence.
-Rates for Whites and Hispanics are similar
across the three types of violence.
-Bidirectional IPV is positively associatedwith younger age, Black ethnicity, men andwomen alcohol problems, women historyof childhood physical abuse, approval ofviolence as a means for conflict resolution,and number of drinks consumed per week
by the women
Percentage of IPV within the total 1995
sample = 23%
Percentage of no IPV within the total 1995
sample = 87%
Percentage of IPV within the total 2000
sample = 19%
Percentage of no IPV within the total 2000

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
the United States
generalpopulation. Violence
and Victims, 20, 499511. doi:
10.1891/vivi.2005.20.
5.499

contiguous in US
Couple status:
Married & cohabitatingRace:
39.6% White
22.6% Black
37.8% Hispanic
Income/SES:
N/R
Age:
N/R
Geography:
48 states

sample = 81%
Bidirectional rates for 1995:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 11%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 47%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV by
ethnicity within the IPV sample:
White 44%
Black 53%
Hispanic 43%
Unidirectional Rates for 1995:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 12%
Percentage of MFPV within the total
sample = 4%
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 8%
Percentage of MFPV by ethnicity within
the total sample:
White 3.6%
Black 3.3%
Hispanic 5.3%
Percentage of FMPV by ethnicity within
the total sample:
White 5.7%
13

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Black 9.5%
Hispanic 9.1%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 53%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 19%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 34%
Percentage of MFPV by ethnicity within
the IPV sample:
White 22%
Black 13%
Hispanic 21%
Percentage of FMPV by ethnicity within
the IPV sample:
White 34%
Black 34%
Hispanic 35%
Bidirectional rates for 2000:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 12%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 63%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample:
White 64%14

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Black 69%
Hispanic 60%
Unidirectional Rates for 2000:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 7%
Percentage of MFPV within the total
sample = 3%
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 4%
Percentage of MFPV by ethnicity within
the total sample:
White 1.1%
Black 2.8%
Hispanic 5.7%
Percentage of FMPV by ethnicity within
the total sample:
White 3.0%
Black 5.1%
Hispanic 4.5%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 37%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 16%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 21%
Percentage of MFPV by ethnicity within
15

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
the IPV sample:
White 9%Black 10%Hispanic 23%
Percentage of FMPV by ethnicity within
the IPV sample:
White 27%
Black 21%
Hispanic 42%
Other/Summary:-Regardless of ethnicity, the most common
form of partner violence in couples
reporting partner violence was mutual(MPV).
-With regard to mutual violence, Blacks
and Hispanics reported this form of
violence 17% and 15%, respectively, incomparison to 7% of White couples. These
trends are similar to ethnic differences inthe various forms of partner violence
reported at baseline in 1995.
-At follow-up, the difference in prevalence
among the various forms of violence acrossethnic groups was more pronounced. For
example, in 1995 MPV was 1.5 times more
likely than FMPV among Black couples
and more than 4 times more likely than
MFPV. While in 2000, MPV among Black
couples was 3 times more likely than
16

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Williams, S. L. &Frieze, I. H. (2005).
Patterns of violent
relationships,
psychologicaldistress, and maritalsatisfaction in anational sample ofmen and women. Sex
Roles, 52, 771-784.
doi: 10.1007/s11199005-4198-4

n=
3,519
Men =
1,727
Women
= 1,792

Cross-sectional design;
Sample type:
Large population sample Self report. The CTS wasfrom the National
used to assess violence.
Comorbidity Survey
Couple status:
N/R
Race:
N/R
Income/SES:
N/R
Age:
N/R
Geography:
National study

FMPV and 15 times more likely than
MFPV.
-MPV among Black couples in comparison
to White couples was 2 times more likely
in 1995 and 2.5 times more likely in 2000.
Percentage of IPV within the total sample =18%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 82%*Divided into 6 IPV categories: mutually
severe, mutually mild, severe
Unidirectional victimization or perpetration(excludes mutual cases), or mild
Unidirectional victim or perpetration(excludes mutual cases)
Bidirectional:
Percentage reporting Bidirectional IPV
within the total sample = 9.0%
Percentage reporting Bidirectional IPV
within the IPV sample = 49.0%
Percentage of Men reporting Bidirectional
IPV within the total sample= 3.6%
Percentage of Women reporting
Bidirectional IPV within the total sample =5.4%
Percentage of Men reporting Bidirectional

17

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
IPV within the IPV sample= 19%
Percentage of Women reporting
Bidirectional IPV within the IPV sample =30%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 9%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 51%
Overall percentage of MFPV in IPV
sample = 20%
Overall percentage of FMPV in IPV
sample = 31%
Victimization:
Percentage of Women reporting MFPV
within the total sample = 2.5%
Percentage of Men reporting FMPV within
the total sample = 2.5%
Percentage of Women reporting MFPV
within the IPV sample = 14%
Percentage of Men reporting FMPV within
the IPV sample = 14%
Perpetration:
Percentage of Men reporting MFPV within
the total sample = 1%
Percentage Women reporting FMPV within
18

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
the total sample = 3%
Percentage of Men reporting MFPV within
the IPV sample = 6%
Percentage of Women reporting FMPV
within the IPV sample = 17%
Other/Summary:-The most frequent pattern of violent
relationship was mutually mild (5.4% of
total sample or 29% of violent
relationships, n = 189), followed bymutually severe violence (3.6% of total
sample or 20% of violent relationships, n =127) and mild perpetration (3.5% of total
sample or 19% of violent relationships, n =122).
-There were significant differences inreporting of mutually severe violence bymen (2.5%, n = 44) and women (4.6%, n =83), and similar differences were found in
mild perpetration reported by men (2.3%, n= 39) and women (4.7%, n = 83).
-Women reported being victims of severe
violence more frequently than men
reported perpetrating severe violence.
Women reported receiving and performing
more violence than did men.
-There were no significant genderdifferences for associations between
mutual violence and psychosocial
19

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Cunradi, C. B.
(2007). Drinking
level, neighborhoodsocial disorder, andmutual intimate
partner violence.
Alcoholism: Clinicaland Experimental
Research, 31(6),1012-1019. doi:
10.1111/j.15300277.2007.00382.x

outcomes, suggesting men and womenexperience mutual violence similarly.
-Of those violent relationships that wereconsidered non- distressed, 26.3 were inmutually severe violent relationships and25.5 were in mutually mild violent
relationships.
-Of those reporting poor relationships,
43.1% were in mutually mild violent
relationships-Of those in high distress relationships,
30.7% were in mutually mild violent
relationships and 18.3% were in mutually
severe relationshipsn=
Cross-sectional design;
Percentage of IPV within the total sample =Sample type:19,035Large population sample One item on a self-report 7%
from the 2000 Nationalquestionnaire was used to Percentage of no IPV within the total
Men =Household Survey on
measure victimization:
sample = 93%
Drug Abuse (NHSDA)‘‘How many times
8,590
during the past 12
Women Couple status:
Bidirectional:= 10,445 Married andmonths did your spouse
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
cohabitating adults
or partner hit or threaten total sample = 3.3%
to hit you?’’
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
Race:
Non-Hispanic black,A second question was
IPV sample = 60%
Hispanic, and Nonused to measure
Hispanic
perpetration: It was:Percentage of Men reporting Bidirectional
white‘‘How many times
IPV within the total sample = 3.1%
Did not report #’s forduring the past 12
Percentage of Men reporting Bidirectional
each ethnicity
months did you hit or
IPV within the IPV sample = 29.4%
threaten to hit your
Income/SES:
N/R
spouse or partner?’’
Percentage of Women reporting
20

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Bidirectional IPV within the total sample =3.2%
Percentage of Women reporting
Bidirectional IPV within the IPV sample =
30.4%

Age:
N/R
Geography:
National study

Unidirectional:
Percentage of MFPV and FMPV within the
total sample = 4.1%
Percentage of MFPV and FMPV within the
IPV sample = 40%*These individuals were excluded and noother rates/numbers were provided about
these individuals.
Other/Summary:-Men who were categorized as having
experienced mutual IPV reported a higher
mean number of past-12 month drinking
days than those who did not experiencemutual IPV (86.7 vs 69.3 days). Similar
results were seen for women (51.3 vs 36.2
days).
-Neighborhood disorder was significantly
associated with increased risk for mutual
IPV (OR 5 1.61; 95% CI 1.39, 1.87).
-Compared with men who were ages 35
years and older, men aged 18 to 25 and 26
to 34, were at a threefold and twofold risk
for mutual IPV, respectively.
-Regarding other socio-demographic
21

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Whitaker, D.,
Haileyesus, T.,
Swahn, M., &Saltzman, L. (2007).
Differences infrequency of violence
and reported injury
between relationships
with reciprocal andnonreciprocal
intimate partner
violence. American
Journal of Public
Health, 97, 941-947.
doi:
10.2105/AJPH.2005.0
79020

n=
11,370
Men =
5,219
Women
= 6,151

Sample type:
Large population sample
from National
Longitudinal Study ofAdolescent Health.
Wave III during 2001
Couple status:
62.7% Never married orliving together
24.5% Lived together
but not married
12.8% Married
Race:69.9% White
15.1% Black
10.7% Hispanic
4.3% Other
Income/SES:Longitudinal design;
Data presented here arefrom Wave III only.
To assess perpetration ofphysical violence inintimate relationships, 2questions were asked:“How often in the past
year have you threatened
your partner withviolence, pushed or
shoved him-her, or
thrown something at
him-her that could hurt?,"and"How often in the past
year have you slapped,
hit, or kicked your22

factors, non-Hispanic black women were at
a 3-fold risk for mutual IPV (OR 5 3.09;
95% CI 1.81, 5.26) compared with nonHispanic white women. Compared withwomen who were ages 35 years and older,women aged 18 to 25, and aged 26 to 34,
were at a 4- and 2-fold risk for mutual IPV,
respectively.
-Regarding educational level, women withless than a high school diploma were atelevated risk for mutual IPV (OR 5 3.10;
95% CI 1.71, 5.62) compared with womenwith at least some college or higher.
Percentage of IPV within the total sample =24%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 76%
Bidirectional:
Percentage Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 12%
Percentage Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 49.7%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV in total
sample = 12%
MFPV reporting Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 4.7%
FMPV reporting Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 7.7%

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
N/RAge:
M age = 22 yrs
Geography:
National sample

Caetano, R., Vaeth, P. n =A. C., & Ramisetty1,136
Mikler, S. (2008).
couplespartner?" on a scale from0 to 7.
Two parallel questions
assessed the partner's
perpetration of violence
toward the respondent.
Injuries from partner
violence were assessedwith a single question forthe perpetration of
injuries upon the partner("How often has partner
had an injury, such as a
sprain, bruise, or cut
because of a fight withyou?"), and a parallel
question assessed thepartner's perpetration of
injuries to the
respondent.

Longitudinal design;
Sample type:
Large population sample Data presented here areof the 85% fromfrom Wave II only.
23

Percentage of Unidirectional IPV in the
IPV sample = 50.3%
MFPV reporting Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 14.5%
FMPV reporting Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 36.2%
Other/Summary:-Women reported a significantly greater
proportion of violent relationships thatwere reciprocal versus nonreciprocal than
did men (women = 51.5%; men = 46.9%; p< .03).
-A greater percentage of women inreciprocally violent relationships
perpetrated medium and high levels ofviolence (29.1% and 13.7%, respectively),than did women perpetrators in nonreciprocally violent relationships (18.9%
and 6.1%, respectively).
-Injury was more likely when violence wasperpetrated by men than by women (men =28.8% vs women = 18.8%; AOR = 1.30),
and in relationships for which IPV wasreciprocal versus nonreciprocal (reciprocal= 28.4% vs nonreciprocal = 11.6 %; AOR= 4.41).
Percentage of IPV within the total sample =13%
Percentage of no IPV within the total

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Intimate partner
violence victim andperpetrator
characteristics among
couples in the UnitedStates. Violence andVictims, 23, 507-518.
doi: 10.1007/s10896008-9178-3

Men =
1,136
Women
= 1,136

Caetano et al., (2005)
72% of these adults
were used for Wave 2
Couple status:
95 % Married
5% cohabitatingRace:
36% White
20% Black
34% Hispanic
10% Mixed ethnicity
Income/SES:
N/R
Age:
Men M age = 52 yrs
Women M age = 50 yrs
Geography:
48 contiguous US states

Multistage random
probability community
sample.
Wave II fromlongitudinal study (seeCaetano, RamisettyMikler, & Field, 2005 formore information on
sample and procedure).
1 hour face-to-faceinterviews conducted inparticipant’s home.
Violence was measured
with the CTS.

sample = 87%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 8%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 62%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV by
ethnicity within the total sample:
White 7%
Black 17%
Hispanic 15%
Mixed 10%Percentage of Bidirectional IPV by
ethnicity within the IPV sample:
White 63%
Black 67%
Hispanic 60%
Mixed 45%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 6%
Percentage of MFPV within the total
sample = 4%
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 2%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within

24

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
the total sample = 38%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 16%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 22%
Percentage of MFPV by ethnicity within
the total sample:
White 1%
Black 3%
Hispanics 6%
Mixed 2%
Percentage of FMPV by ethnicity within
the total sample:
White 3%Black 5%Hispanics 4%
Mixed 9%Percentage of MFPV by ethnicity within
the IPV sample:
White 10%
Black 12%Hispanic 23%
Mixed 9%Percentage of FMPV by ethnicity within
IPV sample:
White 27%
Black 20%
25

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Hispanic 16%
Mixed 45%

McKinney, C. M.,

n = 1615 Sample type:Longitudinal design;
26

Overall/Summary:-Mutual violence was higher than
Unidirectional violence in all ethnic
groups, but especially so among Blacks andHispanics.
- Employed men and women had
particularly high rates of involvement inmutually violent relationships.
-Men and women living with their partner
were 5 times more likely to have been in amutually violent relationship than married
partners.
-For both men and women, length ofrelationship was associated withperpetration, victimization and mutual
violence, with higher rates observed among
couples in shorter relationships.
-Women with higher levels of
powerlessness were more at risk for mutual
violence-Women with depression were less likely
to than non-depressed women to be in amutually violent relationship- For women, mutually violent
relationships were most likely to occur
among Black and Hispanic couples, andleast likely to occur among White couples.
Percentage of IPV within the total sample =PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Caetano, R.,
Ramisetty-Mikler, S.,& Nelson, S. (2008).
Childhood family
violence andperpetration andvictimization of
intimate partner
violence: Findings
from a national
population-based
study of couples.
Annals of
Epidemiology, 19(1),25-32. doi:
10.1016/j.annepidem.
2008.08.008

couples
Men =
1,615
Women
= 1,615

Large population sample
of heterosexual couples
from the U.S. household
population by using
multistage cluster
sampling
Couple status:
N/R
Race:
Non-reciprocal MFPV74.8% White
Non-reciprocal FMPV70.9% White
Reciprocal IPV61.9% WhiteNo IPV80.4% White
Income/SES:
Non-reciprocal MFPV45% > $40,000/year
Non-reciprocal FMPV44.6% > $40,000
Reciprocal IPV- 36.5%> $40,000
No IPV- 48.5% >$40,000
Age:
Non-reciprocal MFPV38.7% between ages of
30-39
Non-reciprocal FMPV-

Data presented here arefrom Wave II only.
Wave II data fromlongitudinal study (seeCaetano, RamisettyMikler, & Field, 2005 formore information on
sample and procedure).
Survey conducted
through face to faceinterviews of couples
aged 18 years and older(with an 85% responserate) in the 48 contiguousUnited States by using a
multistage random
probability sampling
method.
Violence was measured
with the CTS.

28%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 72%
Percentage of no IPV by ethnicity within
the total sample:
White, non-Hispanic 80.4%
Black, non-Hispanic 5.7%
Hispanic 6.5%
Mixed/Other 7.5%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 15%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 53%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV by
ethnicity within the total sample:
White, non-Hispanic 61.9%
Black, non-Hispanic 13%
Hispanic 7.9%
Mixed/Other 17.2%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 13%
Percentage of MFPV within the total
sample = 4%
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 9%27

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
31.3% between ages of
30-39
Reciprocal IPV39.6% between ages of
30-39
No IPV- 45.8% > 50
years
Geography:
Texas

Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 47%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 14%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 33%
Percentage of MFPV by ethnicity within
the total sample:
White, non-Hispanic 74.8%
Black, non-Hispanic 5.5%
Hispanic 10.8%
Mixed/Other 9.0%
Percentage of FMPV by ethnicity within
the total sample:
White, non-Hispanic 70.9%
Black, non-Hispanic 8.7%
Hispanic 8.3%
Mixed/Other 12.1%
Overall/Summary:-Men who experienced severe childhood
physical abuse, witnessed interparental
threats or physical violence, or experienced
severe child-family violence were morethan 2 times as likely to engage inreciprocal IPV compared to men with nohistory of childhood family violence,- For men, a history of moderate childhood28

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Straus, M. A. (2008).
Dominance andsymmetry in partner
violence by male andfemale university
students in 32
nations. Children ofYouth Services
Review, 30, 252-275.
doi:
10.1016/j.childyouth.
2007.10.004

n=13,609Sample type:
Large population sample
from an international
studyof university students
from 68 universities in
32 nations
Couple status:
Had to have been in a
relationship lasting 1
month or more; 9.7%
had been in their current
relationship for 1 month;
38% from 2-12 months
Race:
See tables
Income/SES:
N/R

Cross-sectional design;
Dominance scale of the
Personal and
Relationships Profile.
Violence was measured
with the CTS2.

physical abuse, or moderate child-family
violence was also positively associatedwith an increased risk of reciprocal IPV-Women who experienced severe childphysical abuse or severe child-family
violence were more than 3 times as likely
to engage in reciprocal IPV compared withwomen with no childhood family violence
history-For women, all other forms of childhood
family violence were associated with agreater than 1.5 fold increased risk ofreciprocal IPV.
Percentage of IPV within the total sample =31%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 69%
Bidirectional:
Percentage Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 21%
Percentage Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 68.6%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample:
National setting% Bidirectional
within IPV
sampleTaiwan59.4
Tanzania
66.6

29

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Age:
N/R
Geography:
World-wide study

MexicoIranSouth Africa
China
Hong Kong
GreeceSouth Korea
Great Britain
RussiaIndia
Venezuela
Hungary
United States
New Zealand
Belgium
Romania
CanadaAustralia
Lithuania
Japan
IsraelGermany
GuatemalaBrazilSwitzerland
Portugal
Netherlands
Singapore
Malta
Sweden
30

64.8
66.6
56.2
38.8
47.4
58.5
70.9
60.5
62.2
61.5
62.5
42.1
56.6
40.0
48.2
42.4
62.6
52.0
48.4
80.0
61.5
54.3
55.5
70.5
61.9
69.5
47.8
46.1
12.5
25.0

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Unidirectional:
Overall median minor assault rate:
Men = 24%
Women = 32%
Overall median severe assault rates:
Men = 8%
Women = 11%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 9.3%
Percentage of MFPV within the total
sample = 3%
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 6.6%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 31.3%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 9.9%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 21.4%
Percentage of MFPV and FMPV within the
IPV sample:
nal setting% MFPV within% FMPV w
IPV sample
IPV sample
n
2.7
37.8
nia
21.2
12.1
o
16.2
18.9
16.6
16.6
31

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
South Africa
China
Hong Kong
GreeceSouth Korea
Great Britain
RussiaIndia
Venezuela
Hungary
United States
New Zealand
Belgium
Romania
CanadaAustralia
Lithuania
Japan
IsraelGermany
GuatemalaBrazilSwitzerland
Portugal
Netherlands
Singapore
Malta
Sweden

18.7
19.7
9.0
24.3
6.4
11.2
7.5
15.3
21.8
15.7
15.2
0.0
18.3
21.2
12.1
20.0
15.1
10.0
15.3
17.3
16.6
11.7
9.5
21.7
8.7
7.6
37.5
37.5

Other/Summary:
32

25.0
41.3
43.4
17.0
22.5
28.1
30.1
23.0
15.6
42.1
28.1
60.0
33.3
36.3
25.2
28.0
36.3
10.0
23.0
28.2
27.7
17.6
28.5
8.7
43.4
46.1
50.0
37.5

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Melander, L. A.,
Noel, H., & Tyler, K.
A. (2010).
Bidirectional,
unidirectional, andnonviolence: A
comparison of thepredictors among
partnered young
adults.
Violence and Victims,
25, 617-630. doi:
10.1891/08866708.25.5.617

n=
6,563
Men =
2,822
Women
= 3,741

Sample type:
Large population sample
drawn from Wave III
and consisted of only
those who reported
having one current
romantic relationship
Couple status:
48.6% were dating, 26%
were cohabiting, and
25% were married.
Race:
72% White
Income/SES:
N/R
Age:

Longitudinal design;
Data presented here arefrom Wave III only.
Researchers used somemeasures that werecollected in Wave I to
analyze qualifying Wave
III participants; See Udry
(1997) for a moredetailed description of
the methodologicalstructure of this data set.
See also Renner et al.
(2010) for a different
manuscript derived fromthis same data set.
33

-The most frequent pattern was
Bidirectional, i.e., both were violent,followed by uni-directional “women-only”
violence.
-In all 32 settings, Bidirectional violence
was the largest category-In the Bidirectional category, men
inflicted more physical injury than women.
-Dominance by the male partner was
associated with a 3-fold increase in theprobability of both partners being violent.
-Each additional year of age was associatedwith a small but statistically significant
decrease in the odds of both partners being
violent.
Percentage of IPV within the total sample =25%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 75%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 13%*Did not report rates by IPV sample
Unidirectional:
Percentage of perpetration only within the
total sample = 7%
Percentage of victimization only within the
total sample = 5%
*Did not report rates by gender

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
M age = 22 yrs
Geography:
National sample*Did not report rates by IPV sample
Intimate Partner Violence
was assessed with twoquestions about
perpetration and twoquestions about
victimization.

34

Other/Summary:-Childhood physical abuse was a risk factor
for Bidirectional violence and perpetration
only- Childhood sexual abuse was a risk factor
for Bidirectional violence compared to nonviolent relationships.
-Childhood neglect was a risk factor for
victimization-More depression was a risk factor for a
Bidirectional violent relationship ascompared to a nonviolent relationship.
-Cohabitating couples were more likely toexperience Bidirectional, perpetration only,and victimization only compared to dating
couples.
-Women were less likely to experience
Bidirectional violence compared toperpetration only and more likely toexperience Bidirectional violence thanvictimization only, Exp(B) = .22 andExp(B) = 3.67, respectively.
-For those in a violent relationship, alcohol
use was associated with Bidirectional
violence rather than perpetration only,
Exp(B) = 1.19.
-Additionally, people who have used illicit
drugs in the past month were more than
twice as likely to be perpetrators only as

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Renner, L. &Whitney, S. (2010).
Examining symmetry
in intimate partner
violence among
young adults using
socio-demographic
characteristics.
Journal of Family
Violence, 25, 91-106.
doi: 10.1007/s10896009-9273-0

n=
4,895
Men =
2,196
Women
= 2,699

Sample type:
Large population sample
from the National
Longitudinal Study ofAdolescent Health(Add Health) data set
Couple status:
16.3% married, 16%
cohabitating, 67.7%
dating. 3.3%
bisexual/homosexual,
96.7 % heterosexualRace:
23.5% Black
60.2% White
6.6% AsianLongitudinal design;
Data presented here arefrom Wave III only.
Archival analysis of datafrom the longitudinal
Add Health Survey Wave
III cases withinformation on pastromantic relationships
over the 6 years from
Wave 1 data collection;
Only persons who
indicated having aromantic relationshipwith at least one episodeof IPV perpetration or
35

compared to those in nonviolent
relationships, Exp(B) = 2.40.
-Blacks were consistently more likely to be
in a violent relationship of any typecompared to a nonviolent relationship. For
example, Blacks were almost two and ahalf times more likely to be in a
Bidirectional violent relationship compared
to a nonviolent relationship, Exp(B) =2.46. Asians and people who wereclassified as Native American-Other weremore likely than Whites to report being in a
Bidirectional violent relationship compared
to a nonviolent relationship, Exp(B) = 1.48
and Exp(B) = 2.09, respectively.
Percentage of IPV within the total sample =40%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 60%
The IPV sample (n = 4,895) was divided
into three subsamples (perpetration-only,
victimization only, and Bidirectional)
Bidiectional: Physical Violence Only:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within IPV
sample = 59.2% (n = 2,660)
Percentage of Men reporting Bidirectional
IPV within IPV sample = 57.3%% (n =1,185)
Percentage of Women reportingPASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
3.8% Native Am
6% Multiracial
Income/SES:
Average SES = $14,620
Age:
N/R
Geography:
National sample

Roberts, A. L.,
McLaughlin, K. A.,
Conron, K. J., &Koenen, K. C. (2011).
Adulthood stressors,
history of childhood
adversity, and risk ofperpetration of
intimate partner
violence. Americann=34,653Men =14, 564
Women
= 20,
089

victimization were
included;
If a respondent reported
both an occurrence of
perpetration andvictimization within acertain sub-type of IPV,he or she was consideredboth a perpetrator and a
victim of that type of IPV(Bidirectional).
Self report questionnairemeasured how often they
were victims of
threatening, physical,
sexual and injury-related
IPV. See also Melander
et al. (2010) for adifferent manuscriptderived from the samedata set.
Longitudinal design;
Sample type:
Large population sample Data presented here arefrom the Nationalfrom Wave II only
Archival analysis of data
Epidemiologic Survey
on Alcohol and Related in National
Conditions (NESARC)
Epidemiologic Survey on
Representative sample
Alcohol and Relatedof the civilian, nonConditions data
institutionalized
primarily from the Wave
population aged 18
II follow-up interview
36

Bidirectional IPV with IPV sample =60.7% (n = 1,475)
Unidirectional Physical Violence Only:
Percentage of Unidirectional Violence
within the IPV sample = 40.3%
Percentage of men reporting MFPV
perpetration within the IPV sample =17.0%
Percentage of women reporting FMPV
perpetration within the IPV sample =23.2%
Other/Summary:-Bidirectional IPV was much morecommon than either form of Unidirectional(perpetrator-only or victim-only) IPV.

Percentage of IPV within total sample =7.8%
Percentage of no IPV within total sample =92.2%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 3.6%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 45.5%

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 1: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in large population samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 40(2), 128138.
doi:10.1016/j.amepre.
2010.10.016

years or more residingin the U.S. at Wave 1 in
2001–2002
Couple status:
Married or in a romantic
relationship in the past
year, excluded
respondents not in a
relationship
Race:
N/R
Income/SES:
N/R
Age:
N/R
Geography:
National Sample

conducted in 2004 –2005, which assessed
IPV perpetration,
childhood adversities,
and past-year stressors
Violence was measured
with a modified versionof the CTS that consistedof six questions.

Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 4.3%
Percentage of MFPV within the total
sample = 1.4%
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 2.9%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 54.4%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 17.3%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 37.1%
Other/Summary:-Men and women reported similar levels of
perpetrating the most-severe acts: 0.55% of
men and 0.69% of women reported cuttingor bruising their partner and 0.41% (SE0.07, n = 56) of men and 0.34% (SE 0.06,
n = 60) of women reported forcing sex.
-Serious IPV perpetration was also morecommon among women than men, with
2.2% of women versus 1.2% of men
endorsing serious perpetration.

37

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Abbreviations:
IPV: Intimate Partner Violence
MFPV/UM: Male to Female perpetrated violence
FPP: Female primary perpetrator (type of mutual violence)
SYM: symmetrical

FMPV/UF: Female to Male perpetrated violence
MPV: Mutual Partner Violence
MPP: Male primary perpetrator (type of mutual violence)

Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Referencen
Sample Characteristics Methods/Design
Results
Kwong, M. J.,n = 707 Sample type:
Cross-sectional design;
Percentage of IPV within the total sample
Bartholomew, K., &Community sample in
The CTS-short form was = 29%
Dutton, D. (1999).
Men =
1987
used to assess violence
Percentage of no IPV within the total
Gender differences in 356
sample = 71%
Couple status:
patterns of
Women Marital or “marital likerelationship violence = 351
relationship”
Bidirectional:
in Alberta. Canadian
one year prior
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
Journal of
Race: N/R
total sample = 16.5%
Behavioural Science,
Percentage of (both men and women
Income/SES:
31, 150-160. doi:
N/R
report) Bidirectional IPV within the IPV
10.1037/h0087083
sample = 57.1%
Age:
N/R
Men report:
Geography:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within theAlberta, Canada
total sample = 9.1%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 31.2%
Women report:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 7.5%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the1

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
IPV sample = 25.9%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 12.4%
Percentage of MFPV within the total
sample = 4.8%
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 7.6%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 42.9%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 16.6%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 26.3%
Men report:
Percentage of MFPV within the total
sample = 3.0%
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 2.7%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 10.2%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 9.3%
Women report:
Percentage of MFPV within the total
2

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
sample = 1.8%
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 5.0%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 6.3%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 17.1%

Capaldi, D. M., &Owen, L. D. (2001).
Physical aggression
in a community
sample of at-risk
young couples:
Gender comparisonsfor high frequency,n = 318
Men =
159
Women
= 159

Sample type:Community sample
Oregon Youth Study
sample of young men at
risk for antisocial
behavior who wererecruited from schools
with a higher than usual

Longitudinal design;
Data presented here arefrom the young adultassessment time period
only.
Retention rates of theoriginal 206 men
averaged
3

Other/Summary:-60% of women who reported perpetration
also reported receiving IPV-79% of women who reported receiving
also perpetrated violence
76% of men who reported perpetrating also
reported receiving violence-77% of men who reported receiving also
reported perpetrating violence-women who reported sufferingconsequences from violence also reported
experiencing the highest frequencies ofabuse both as perpetrators and victims
Percentage of IPV within the total sample =24.3%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 76.7%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 18%

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
injury, andfear. Journal of
Family Psychology,
15(3), 425-440.
doi:10.1037/08933200.15.3.425

incidence ofdelinquency in theneighborhood for the
medium-sized
metropolitan area.
Couple status:
37% Living together
18% Married
Race:
90% White
Income/SES:
75% lowerclass/working classAge:
Men M age = 21.3 yrs
Women M age = 20.8
yrs
Geography:
Oregon98% in young adulthood.
Data with an intimate
partner were collected at
two time points, namelylateadolescence (17-20 yearsof age) and young
adulthood (20-23 yearsof age).
Only the young adultassessment was used in
the current study.
The young adult couples'
assessment was collectedduring Year 12 of thestudy or in Year 13 orYear 14, depending on
when the man was in a
relationship. Participation
for the couples'
assessment was 77% (n =159). All of theseassessments involved awomen partner. Reasonsfor nonparticipation
included: not having apartner (14%), gave noreason(4%), incarcerated(1%), and other (3%).
Violence was measured
4

Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 56.5%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 6.3%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 43.5%
Percentage of MFPV within the total
sample = 1%
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 5%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 8.7%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 34.8%
Other/Summary:-The predominant pattern of frequentphysical aggression was Bidirectional, suchthat for just over half of the couples with
one frequently physically aggressive
partner, both partners were frequently
aggressive.
-Men in the frequently aggressive andBidirectional group were significantly
higher in antisocial behavior than those in
the partner-only frequently aggressive orboth partners low-frequency group.

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
with the CTS.

Temple, J. R.,
Weston, R., &Marshall, L. L.
(2005). Physical andmental healthoutcomes of womenin nonviolent,
unilaterally violent,
and mutually violent
relationships.
Violence and Victims,
20, 355–379. doi:
10.1891/vivi.20.3.335

Phase 1n = 835
Women
only
Phase 2- used535 ofthe 835
Women
participa
nts from
Phase I

Sample type:Community sample
Data used was fromproject HOW
Couple status:
24.1% Dating
34.5% Cohabitating
41.4% Married
Race:
36.2% African Am
32.7% Euro-Am
31.1% Mexican Am
Income/SES:
Average income =107% of poverty (7%above the threshold)Age:
M age = 33.2 yrs
Geography:
Texas

Longitudinal design;
Phase 1 assessed Patternsof IPV.
Phase 2 assessed healthrelated outcomes
associated with IPV.
Violence was measured
with Marshall’s (1992)
Severity of Violence
Against Women Scale. A
46-item checklist wasused to indicate threats,physical violence, andsexual aggression
sustained by women andtheir partners wasfollowed by questions
about treatment for
injury—and Marshall’s
Severity of Violence
Against Men Scale.
5-For the women, there was also asignificant effect of antisocial behavior bygroup, F(3, 155) = 10.73, p < .001. Womenin the frequent and Bidirectional groupwere significantly higher in antisocial
behavior than those in the group in which
both partners were infrequently physicallyaggressive.
Percentage of IPV within the total sample =77%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 23% (n = 188)
Within Phase 1, the researchers createdgroups based on women's reports ofphysical violence.
-Violence was not present (NV) or was
unidirectional.
-Perpetrated by the Men (UM) or by the
Women (UF)-When the violence was Bidirectional, thegroups were classified as:-Symmetrical (SYM)-Men Primary Perpetrator (MPP)-Women Primary Perpetrator (FPP)
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 53%
Percentage of FPP within the total sample

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics= 5.8% (48 of 832)
Percentage of MPP within the total sample= 28.8% (240 of 832)
Percentage of SYM within the total sample= 18.6% (155 of 832)
Percentage of Bidirectional within the IPVsample = 69%
Percentage of FPP within the IPV sample =7.5% (48 of 644)
Percentage of MPP within the IPV sample= 37.3% (240 of 644)
Percentage of SYM within the IPV sample= 24.1% (155 of 644)
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 24%
Percentage of MFPV within the total
sample = 15.1% (126 of 832)
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 9% (75 of 832)
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 31%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 19.6% (126 of 644)
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 11.6% (75 of 644)
6

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Weston, R., Temple,
J., & Marshall, L.L.
(2005). Gendersymmetry andn = 835
Women
only

Sample type:Community sample
First wave of HOW:
Health Outcomes ofLongitudinal design;
Data presented are from
Wave I only.
Marshall’s Subtle and7

Other/Summary:-The women in the MPP group sustained
the most threats, violence, sexual
aggression, and psychological abuse. They
also reported the most fear. Injury was
highest in the MPP and FPP groups.
-Women in the MPP group also
experienced more severe violence andmore frequent psychological abuse than
women in the FPP, SYM, or UM groups-Asymmetric Bidirectional IPV was more
frequent and severe compared tounidirectional IPV-Among each of the IPV groups, fewer
women were in the 2 groups that
represented women dominated violence(UF and FPP) than were in the men
dominated violence groups.
-Women in the MPP group were less
optimistic about their health and had thepoorest mental health-The same proportion of men and womenin the MPP and FPP groups sustained an
injury, but more women in the MPP groupthan men in the FPP group reported an
injuryPercentage of IPV within the total sample =77.4%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 22.6% (n = 189 of 835).

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
asymmetry in violent
relationships: patternsof mutuality among
racially diverse
women. Sex Roles,
53, 553-571. doi:
10.1007/s11199-0057142-8

Women-study began in
1995
Couple status:
Required to be in a
relationship lasting atleast 1 year
21.1% dating
37.5% cohabitating
41.3% legally married
Race:35.5% African Am
31.9% non-Hispanic
Euro-Am
32.6% Mexican Am
Income/SES:
Low incomeAge:
M age = 32.5 yrs
Geography:
N/R

Overt Psychological
Abuse Scale.
Marshall’s Severity ofViolence Against
Women scale.
To create groups:“We first had toapproximate the severityof each behavior.
Therefore, the first step
was to multiply eachsubjective frequency
response by its associatedweight (shown in the
appendix), resulting in aweighted frequency
score. Second, we
calculated a difference
score for each item bysubtracting the weighted
frequency score ofwomen’s behaviors fromtheir male partners’
behaviors. Third, thesedifference scores weresummed to create total
scores that representeddifferences between
partners and women’s
violence. A negative
8

Percentage of SYM within the total sample= 19% (156 of 835)
Percentage of FPP within the total sample= 6% (48 of 835)
Percentage of MPP within the total sample= 29% (241 of 835)
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 53%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 68.9%
Percentage of SYM within the
Bidirectional sample = 35% (156 of 445)
Percentage of FPP within the Bidirectional
sample = 11% (48 of 445)
Percentage of MPP within the Bidirectional
sample = 54% (241 of 445)
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 24%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 31.1%
Other/Summary:-More relationships were classified as MPP(54%) than SYM (35%) or FPP (11%).

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
difference score indicatedwomen were perpetrating
physical IPV more often
than they wereexperiencing physical
IPV. As the appendix
shows, weights arealways higher for men
than for women,
reflecting the perceptionthat a behavior done by
women has less impact
than the same behavior
done by men. While thiswould result in difference
scores indicating men are
more violent if women
perceived they and theirpartners perpetrated thesame behaviors withequal frequency, it ispossible for difference
scores to reflect womenare primary perpetrators
when they perpetrate
behaviors more often
than their men partners.
For example, if a woman
perpetrated the nine least
severe acts of violence
9-Comparing women’s and men’s
perpetration of several types of IPV (e.g.,threats, severe physical), MPP-pattern
women experienced all IPV types more
often and were more likely to sustain injury
than their men partners.
-Men in the MPP pattern perpetrated
violence, including severe IPV, most often.
Consequently, men’s IPV in the MPP
pattern resulted in proportionately moreinjuries than those inﬂicted by their womencounterparts in the FPP pattern.
-Moreover, in comparing unilateral
violence by women to unilateral violenceby men, women’s IPV was not as severe as
men’s, even when the women were the soleperpetrators. Results also indicatedwomen’s IPV was generally not as frequentor severe as their partners’.

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Forgey, M. A., &Badger, L. (2006).
Patterns of intimate
partner violence
among married
women in the
military: Type, level,
directionality, andconsequences.
Journal of Family
Violence, 21, 369-

n = 248
Women
only

Sample type:Community sample;
Enlisted active duty
women married tocivilian spouses at alarge Army Installation
Couple status:
MarriedRace:
40% Black
37% White(i.e., items 20–29 in the
appendix) twice when her
partner only perpetrated
them once, the negativevalue of the weighted
difference score would
indicate that she was theprimary perpetrator.”“Scores less than −2 werecategorized as women
primary perpetrator(FPP) (n = 48, 10.8%).
Scores greater than +2
were categorized as MPP(n = 241, 54.2%), withthe remainder
categorized assymmetrical (n = 156,
35.1%).”
Cross sectional design;
Women reported onthemselves and theirpartners.
Violence was measured
with the CTS2

10

Percentage of IPV within the total sample =59.7%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 40.3%
Divided sample up into types of violence:
Bidirectional symmetrical: both partners
perpetrated at equal rates and severity
Bidirectional asymmetrical: one partner
perpetrated minor acts while the otherperpetrated severe acts of IPV

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
380. doi:
10.1007/s10896-0069033-3

11% Hispanic
5% Asian Pacific
3% Native Am.
4% Other
Income/SES:
N/RAge:
M age = 29.8 yrs
Geography:
N/R

Unilateral: only one partner perpetrated
IPV
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Women reporting
Bidirectional IPV within the total sample =45.5%
Percentage of Women reporting
Bidirectional symmetrical IPV within the
total sample = 36.2%
Percentage of Women reporting
Bidirectional asymmetrical IPV (mensevere, women minor) within the total
sample = 6.1%
Percentage of Women reporting
Bidirectional asymmetrical IPV (women
severe, men minor) within the total sample= 3.2%
Percentage of Women reporting
Bidirectional IPV within the IPV sample =76.3%
Percentage of Women reporting
Bidirectional symmetrical IPV within the
IPV sample = 60.8%
Percentage of Women reporting
Bidirectional asymmetrical IPV (mensevere, women minor) within the IPVsample = 10.1%
Percentage of Women reporting11

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Bidirectional asymmetrical IPV (women
severe, men minor) within the IPV sample= 5.4%
Percentage of Bidirectional symmetricalsevere IPV by ethnicity:
White 9.7%
Black 10.2%
Hispanic 7.4%
Other 24.1%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Women reporting
unidirectional IPV within the total sample= 14.1%
Percentage of Women reporting MFPV
within the total sample = 10.9%
Percentage of Women reporting FMPV
within the total sample = 3.2%
Percentage of Women reporting
unidirectional IPV within the IPV sample =23.2%
Percentage of Women reporting MFPV
within the IPV sample = 18.2%
Percentage of Women reporting FMPV
within the IPV sample = 5.0%
Unilateral/Bidirectional asymmetricalviolence by race:
12

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Inflicted by enlisted women:
White = 7.5%
Black = 9.2%
Hispanic = 0%
Other = 3.4%
Inflicted by civilian spouse:
White = 15.1%
Black = 14.3%
Hispanic = 33.3%
Other = 17.2%

Stanley, J. L.,
Bartholomew, K.,
Taylor, T., Oram, D.,& Landolt, M.
(2006). Intimate
violence in malesame-sex
relationships. Journalof Family Violence,n = 69of the195
gay orbisexualmen
whoreported
at least

Sample type:Community sample
Gay and Bisexuals whoreported one IPV
episodeCouple status:
75.4% exclusively gay
20.3% predominately
gay

Cross sectional;
Semi-structured
interview that obtained
descriptions of violent
episodes.
History of Attachments
Interview

13

Other/Summary:-47.3% of White participants reported noviolence-36.7% of Black participants reported noviolence-29.6% of Hispanic participants reported
no violence-41.4% of participants who described
themselves as Other in terms of their race
reported no violence
Percentage of Men reporting IPV within
the total sample = 39%
Percentage of Men reporting no IPV within
the total sample = 61%
Only 69 individuals reported data about
violence in a men-men gay relationshipthat could be coded.

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
21(1), 31-41. doi:
10.1007/s10896-0059008-9

Capaldi, D. M., Kim,
H. K., & Shortt, J. W.
(2007). Observed
initiation andreciprocity ofphysical aggression inyoung at risk couples.

one IPV
experien
ce in arelationshipn = 206
couples
Men =
206
Women
= 206

4.2% varying degrees ofbisexuality
Race:
44.9%
British/Irish/Scottish/Welsh 31.9% Other
European
Income/SES:Median income range =$30,000–$39,000Age:
M age = 38.6 yrs
Geography:
VancouverSample type:Community sample
from Oregon YouthStudy
Men at risk fordelinquency-recruitedfrom higher crime areas

Bidirectional:
Percentage of Men reporting Bidirectional
IPV within the total sample = 17% (34 of
195)
Percentage of Men reporting Bidirectional
IPV within the IPV sample = 50% (34 of
69)
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 17%
Percentage of Men reporting perpetration
within the total sample = 7%
Percentage of Men reporting of
victimization within the total sample =10%

Longitudinal design;
Archival analysis ofpreviously collected datafrom longitudinal study.
Interview and self reportquestionnaire for men
and their partners from
14

Percentage of Men reporting Unidirectional
IPV within the IPV sample = 50%
Percentage of Men reporting perpetration
within the IPV sample = 22%
Percentage of Men reporting victimization
within the IPV sample = 28%
Unweighted percentage of IPV in the total
sample across time = 35%
56% at T1
38% at T2
27% at T3
19% at T4

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Journal of Family
Violence, 22, 101111. doi:
10.1007/s10896-0079067-1

Couple status:
N/R
Race:
90% European Am
Income/SES:
75% Lower and working
class
Age:
N/R
Geography:
Pacific NW

the National Survey ofHealth and Stress. Men
reported on their own
rates of perpetration andvictimization. Their
partners separately
reported on their own
rates of perpetration andvictimization.

Unweighted percentage of no IPV in the
total sample across time = 65%
44% at T1
62% at T2
73% at T3
81% at T4
Bidirectional:
Reciprocation of violence when initiated bymen and women during a videotaped
discussion:
M’s initiation % W’s recip. rate
W’s initiation% M’s recip. rate
T1
10
.25
46
.24
T2
10
.25
28
.20
T3
7
.10
20
.30
T4
8
.50
11
.22
Men and Women’s reports of perpetration:
According to either the men’s or theirpartner’s report:
At T1, 30.5% of the men and 35.5% of
their partners perpetrated violence at leastonce.
At T2, 31% of the men and 39.9% of theirpartners perpetrated violence

15

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
at least once.
At T3, 23.5% of the men and 27.7% of
their partners perpetrated violence at least
once
At T4 18.6% of the men and 23% of theirpartners perpetrated violence at least once.
Overall/Summary:- The rate of reported violence decreased
across the four time periods.
-The probability of reciprocation appeared
to be relatively equal for men and womenat T1 and T2.
-However, the women were more likely toinitiate physical aggression at all time
points. Of the 85 observation sessions inwhich physically aggressive acts wereperpetrated by men, the men’s aggression
followed women’s prior aggression in 41%of the sessions.
-Of the 170 observation sessions in which
physically aggressive acts were committed
by women, only 8.2% of the sessions had
the women’s aggression following the
men’s prior aggression.
-Of the 49 observation sessions across thefour time points involving mutual physicalaggression, 71.4% involved men
reciprocating women initiated aggression.
Conversely, 28.6% involved women
16

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Jaeger, J. R.,
Spielman, D.,
Cronholm, P. F.,Applebaum, S., &Holmes, W. C.
(2008). Screening
male primary carepatients for intimate
partner violence
perpetration. Journalof General Internal
Medicine, 23(8),1152-1156.
doi:10.1007/s11606008-0634-9

n = 128
Men
only

reciprocating men initiated aggression.
-The average rates of reciprocation acrossthe 4 time points appeared to be similar for
men and women. Women and men
appeared more likely to report injuries if
the couples experienced mutual physicalaggression in their interactions.
Cross-sectional design;
Percentage of IPV within the total sample =Sample type:Community sample
Self-report questionnaires 31%
Men recruited fromgiven to participants at
Percentage of no IPV within the total
primary health provider end of their primary
sample = 69%
officehealth provider visit andResponse rate: 36%
anonymously returned
Bidirectional:
through mail in
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
Couple status:
68% had anunmarked pre-stamped
total sample = 8%
intimate partner
envelope. 128 men were Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
66% married
screened and 46 of those IPV sample = 26%
69% currently lived with men returned the survey
partnerthey were given.
Unidirectional:
The CTS2 was used toPercentage of Unidirectional IPV within
Race:
N/R
assess violence.
the total sample = 23%
Percentage reporting MFPV within the
Income/SES:
N/R
total sample = 9%
Percentage reporting FMPV within theAge:
Range = 18–84 yrs
total sample = 14%
M age = 52 yrs
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
Geography:
the IPV sample = 74%
Pennsylvania
Percentage reporting MFPV within the IPVsample = 29%
17

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Percentage reporting FMPV within the IPVsample = 45%

Rhodes, K.V., Houry, n = 712
D., Cerulli, C.,
Men
Straus, H., Kaslow,
only
N.J., & McNutt, L. A.
(2009). Intimate
partner violence andcomorbid mental
health conditions
among urban malepatients. Annals of
Family Medicine,7(1), 47-55. doi:
10.1370/afm.936

Sample type:Community sample
Emergency department
patients
Couple status: For theparticipants who had
experienced IPV(IPV Positive):
68.2% Single;
20.5% Separated,
Widowed, or Divorced;
and11.2% Married
For the participants who
had not experienced IPV(IPV Negative):
72.2% Single;
12.9% Separated,
Widowed, or Divorced;
and
14.9% Married
Race:
IPV Positive:
9.2% White,
87.7% Black,
0.4% Hispanic,

Cross sectional design;Computer based self
assessment healthquestionnaire;
Victimization wasassessed using
The George Washington
University Universal
Violence Prevention
Screening Protocol;
To assess perpetration,
the authors used amodified version of ascale developed by the
first author that consistedof 8 questions assessing
controlling behavior,verbal aggression,
attitudes toward physicaland sexual aggression,and both physical andsexual abuse of a current
partner.

18

Percentage of IPV within the total sample =36%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 64%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Men reporting Bidirectional
IPV within the total sample = 11%
Percentage of Men reporting Bidirectional
IPV within the IPV sample = 30%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 25%
Percentage of Men reporting MFPV only
within the total sample = 5%
Percentage of Men reporting FMPV only
within the total sample = 20%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 70%
Percentage of Men reporting MFPV only
within the IPV sample = 15%
Percentage of Men reporting FMPV only
within the IPV sample = 55%

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Tyler, K.A.,
Melander, L.A., &Noel, H. (2009).
Bidirectional partner
violence among
homeless young
adults: Risk factors
and outcomes.
Journal ofInterpersonal
Violence, 24(6),1014-1035. doi:n = 199
Men =
119
Women
= 80
The
final
sampleconsisted of 166

0.4% Asian,
2.3% OtherIPV Negative:
7.8% White,
90.5% Black,
0.4% Hispanic,
0.2% Asian,
1.1% Other
Income/SES:
N/R
Age:
Range = 18-55
IPV Positive M age =35.4 yrs
IPV Negative M age =35.2 yrs
Geography:
Southeast US
Sample type:Community sample
Homeless young adults;
Data from the HomelessYoung Adult Project
Study eligibility
required young people
to be between the agesof 19 and 25 andhomeless.
Couple status:
N/R

Other/Summary:-Mental health scores in the clinical range(mod/sev) were highest among thosereporting both victimization andperpetration-The prevalence ratios of drug, tobacco,and alcohol use increased as abuse andviolence in the relationship increased, withbidirectional IPV having the greatest riskof poor mental health and unhealthy
behaviors

Cross- sectional
Respondent Perpetrated
Partner Violence Scalebased on 14 items fromthe CTS2 was used toassess violence.
An interview was also
conducted.

Percentage of IPV within the total sample =75%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 25%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 59%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 78.7%
Unidirectional:

19

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
10.1177/0886260508
319364

Panuzio, J., &DiLillo, D. (2010).
Physical,
psychological, andsexual intimate
partner aggression
among newlywed
couples: Longitudinal
prediction of maritalsatisfaction. Journalof Family Violence,25(7), 689-699.
doi:10.1007/s10896010-9328-2

youngadultswho
werehomelessn = 404;202
couples
Men =
202
Women
= 202

Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 16%
Percentage reporting perpetration only
within the total sample = 6%
Percentage reporting victimization only
within the total sample = 10%

Race:
80% White
Income/SES:
N/RAge:
M age = 21.45 yrs
Geography:
Northwestern US

Sample type:Community sample
Heterosexual couples
recruited during the firstyear of marriage
Couple status:
Married or cohabitatingRace:
96% of women and 92%
of men = European Am
Income/SES:
67.5% < $60,000/ year
Age:
Men M age = 27.23 yrs
Women M age = 25.75
yrs
Geography:
Lancaster County,
Nebraska

Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 21.3%
Longitudinal design;
Data presented here arefrom a cross-sectional
sample of previously
collected longitudinaldata.
All participants were partof a larger study
examining thelongitudinal effects ofchild maltreatment on
adult intimate
relationships (see DiLilloet al. 2009); however, thecurrent investigation
focused exclusively on
present maritalfunctioning.
The CTS2 was used toassess violence.
20

Percentage of IPV within the total sample =36.6%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 63.4%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 27.2%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 74.3%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 9.4%
Percentage of MFPV within the total
sample = 3%
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 6.4%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV withinPASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
the IPV sample = 25.7%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 8.1%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 17.6%

Kelly, B. C.,
Izienicki, H., Bimbi,
D. S., & Parsons, J.
T. (2011). Theintersection of mutual
partner violence andsubstance use among
urban gays, lesbians,andbisexuals. Deviant
Behavior, 32(5), 379404.
doi:10.1080/0163962
1003800158

n=
2,200
Men =
1,782
Women
= 418

Sample type:Community sample
Couple status:
90.3% Gay/Lesbian
9.6% BisexualRace:
57.1% White
20.2% Latino
12.1% Asian/PacificIslander
10.6% African
AmericanIncome/SES:
25.1%$40, 000 – $60,000
Age:
Range = 18–78
M age = 37.07 yrs
Geography:
New York City and Los

Cross-sectional design;
A cross-sectional streetintercept survey method(Miller et al, 1997) wasused to survey 2,200
members of the GLB
community at four large
GLB community eventsin New York
City and Los Angeles in2004 through the Sex andLove Project.
Participants were asked ifthey had experienceddifferent forms ofphysical partner violenceby a primary partner inthe past five years by
answering ‘‘yes’’ or‘‘no’’ to questions such
21

Other/Summary:-directionality of physical IPV was not
related to either husband or wife maritalsatisfaction at T2 and T3
Percentage of IPV within the total sample =44.1%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 55.9%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 23.4%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 53%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 20.7%
Percentage of victimization within the total
sample = 16.6%
Percentage of perpetration within the total
sample = 4.1%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV withinPASK#3 Online Tables - Table 2: The rate of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in community or purposive samples
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Angeles

as: ‘‘Hit you with fists oran open hand?’’or‘‘Thrown something at
you?” and so on. Similar
questions were used toassess IPV perpetration.

the IPV sample = 47.0%
Percentage of victimization within the IPVsample = 37.7%
Percentage of perpetration within the IPVsample = 9.3%
Other/Summary:-Those who reported MPV consistently
reported the highest prevalence of drug
involvement-For men reporting MPV, they had
significantly higher prevalence of alcoholuse, cocaine, ecstasy, and substance abuse
treatment compared to men with no IPV-For women reporting MPV, they weresignificantly more likely to report alcohol
use and substance abuse treatmentcompared to those with no IPV

22PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 3. The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in school and university
samplesStudy
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Abbreviations:
IPV: Intimate Partner Violence
MFPV/UM: Male to Female perpetrated violence
FPP: Female primary perpetrator (type of mutual violence)
SYM: symmetrical

FMPV/UF: Female to Male perpetrated violence
MPV: Mutual Partner Violence
MPP: Male primary perpetrator (type of mutual violence)

Table 3: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in school and university samples
Reference
Henton, J., Cate, R.,
Koval, J., Lloyd, S.,& Christopher, S.
(1983). Romance andViolence in Dating
Relationships.
Journal of Family
Issues, 4(3), 467-482.
doi:
10.1177/0192513830
0 4003004

nn = 644
Boys =
351
Girls =
293

Sample Characteristics
Sample type:High school sample
Couple status:
N/R
Race:
N/R
Income/SES:
N/RAge:
M age = 17.1 yrs
Geography:
Oregon

Methods/Design
Cross-sectional design;
High school students
were administered a selfreport questionnaire
where they reported
incidents of premaritalinterpersonal violence.
The CTS was used toassess violence.

Results
Percentage of IPV within the total sample= 12.1%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 81.9%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 7.8%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 71.4%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional within the
total sample = 3.1%
Percentage MFPV within the total sample= 1.6%
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 1.6%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 28.6%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPV

1PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 3. The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in school and university
samplesStudy
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
sample = 14.3%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 14.3%

Gray, H. M. &Foshee, V. (1997).
Adolescent dating
violence: Differences
between one-sided
and mutually violent
profiles. Journal ofInterpersonal
Violence, 12(1), 126141. doi:
10.1177/0886260970
12001008

n = 77of 185students
in 6th to
12th
grade
who
reported
DV in
most
their
most
recent or
current
datingSample type:6-12 graders in public
middle and high school
in 1992
Couple status:
All participants reported
being in a past or current
dating relationshipRace:
62% White
35% Black
3% Other
Income/SES:
N/R
Age:

Cross sectional design;
Questionnaires-DV
profile, Amount of DV,
Severity of DV, Injuries,
Length of relationship, #of dates, exclusiveness,
effects of viol, witnessing
spousal abuse,
experiencing physicalabuse at home,
acceptance of DV,
experience of violence inpast relationship

2

Other/Summary:-Of the total sample, 12.1% reported thatthey had been involved in a violent
premarital relationship as an abuser or
victim of abuse.
-In 71.4% of the abusive relationships,
each partner had been both the victim andaggressor at some point in time.
-In 48.7% of the abusive relationships, therespondents perceived that both partners
were responsible for “starting” theviolence.
Percentage of IPV within the total sample= 41.6%Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 58.4%
Bidirectional:
Percentage reporting Bidirectional IPV
within the total sample = 27.8%
Percentage reporting Bidirectional IPV
within the IPV sample = 66.2%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 14%
Percentage reporting victimization only

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 3. The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in school and university
samplesStudy
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
relationship

N/R
Geography:
North Carolina

within the total sample = 5.9%
Percentage reporting perpetration only
within the total sample = 8.1%

Boys =
28
Girls =
49

Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 33.8%
Percentage reporting victimization only
within the IPV sample = 14.3%
Percentage reporting perpetration only
within the IPV sample = 19.5%
Other/Summary:
Mutually violent group vs. one-sided-sustained & initiated violence, amount ofviolence, and injuries was significantly
higher in mutual IPV
Mutually violent group vs. victim only
-violence sustained, severe types, andinjuries was significantly higher in mutual
IPV
Mutually violent group vs. perpetration
only-violence initiated and severe types was
significantly higher for mutual IPV-mutual IPV had a higher # of past dating
partners who were violent vs. perpetration
only-Overall, severity sustained was equal toseverity initiated for mutual
IPV.Adolescents in mutually violent
relationships were more accepting of3

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 3. The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in school and university
samplesStudy
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Hines, D., &Saudino, K. (2003).
Gender differences in
psychological,
physical, and sexual
aggression amongcollege students using
the Revised Conflict
Tactics Scales.
Violence and Victims,
18(2), 197-217. doi |:10.1891/vivi.2003.18.
2.197

n = 481
Men =
179
Women
= 302

Sample type:College sample
Couple status:
Been in a romantic
relationship within theprevious 6 months
97% currently dating
partners, 3% unmarried,
cohabitating
Race:
77% White
13% Asian
5% Hispanic
2% Black
3% Other
Income/SES:Upper middle classuniversity
Age:
M age = 19.1 yrs
Geography:
Northeastern university

Cross-sectional design
The CTS2 was used toassess violence.

violence and also sustained and initiatedgreater amounts of violence.
Percentage of IPV within the total sample= 39%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 61%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 21.0%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 54.3%
Unidirectional:
Percentage that reported Unidirectional
IPV within the total sample = 17.3%
Percentage of MFPV within the total
sample = 4.8%
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 12.5%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 44.7%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 12.4%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 32.3%
Other/Summary:-29% men and 35% of women reported
perpetrating physical aggression

4

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 3. The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in school and university
samplesStudy
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Orcutt, H. K., Garcia, n = 457
M., & Pickett, S. M.
Women(2005). Femaleonly
perpetrated intimate
partner violence andromantic attachment
style in a college
student sample.
Violence and Victims,
20(3), 287-302. doi:
10.1891/vivi.20.3.287

Sample type:College sample;
undergraduate students
Couple status:
Only data from womenin a dating relationshiplasting at least 1 monthRace:
61 % White
25% Black
4.8% Latino
6.4% Asian American
4% American Indian
2.4% Other
Age:
98% < 24 yrs
53% = 18 yrs
Geography:
large Midwestern
university

Cross-sectional design;
Self-report questionnaire.
The CTS2 was used toassess violence.

-25.5% of men and 34% of womenreported perpetrating minor aggression-10.5% men and 7.5% women reported
perpetrating severe aggression
Percentage of IPV within the total sample= 45%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 55%
Percentage of IPV by ethnicity within the
total sample:
Black 52%
White 39%
Other 41%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 28.5%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 63%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV by
ethnicity within the total sample:
Black 28%
White 22%
Other 27.6%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 16.5%
Percentage of MFPV within the total

5

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 3. The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in school and university
samplesStudy
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
sample = 5.5%
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 11%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 37%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 12%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 25%
Unidirectional MFPV by ethnicity within
the total sample:
Black 4%White 6%
Other 2.6%
Unidirectional FMPV by ethnicity within
the total sample:
Black 10%White 11%
Other 11%
Other/Summary:-Bidirectionally violent women reported
significantly higher rates of perpetration ofminor and overall acts of physical assault
and overall acts of sexual coercion than
Unidirectional perpetrators.
-The Bidirectionally violent group reported
experiencing significantly
6PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 3. The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in school and university
samplesStudy
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Straus, M. A. &Ramirez, I. L. (2007).
Gender symmetry inprevalence, severity,and chronicity ofphysical aggression
against dating
partners by university
students in Mexicoand the United States.
Aggressive Behavior,n=
1, 541
Men =
511
Women
= 1,030

Sample type:College sample
Couple status:
New Hampshire:
93.4% Dating
4.3% Engaged
2.3% Married
Texas- non Mexican:
71.4% Dating
8.6% Engaged
20.0% Married

Cross-sectional design;
Self report data wereobtained byadministering
questionnaires to students
in introductory sociology
and psychology classes at
the Universidad
Autonoma de Ciudad
Juarez, Mexico,
University of Texas at El
7higher rates of minor and overall acts ofpsychological aggression, minor acts ofphysical assault, and minor and overall actsof sexual coercion than victims alone.
-Bidirectionally violent women reported
higher rates of inflicted injury than
Unidirectionally violent perpetrators.
-Seventy-six of the Bidirectionally violent
women reported causing no injury to theirpartners. Of those women, 87% reported
no injury was inflicted onto them, 8%
reported being victims of minor injury
only, and 5% reported being victims of.severe injury (which may also include aminor type) as a result of intimate partner
aggression.
-Attachment anxiety scores weresignificantly lower for women in thenonviolent versus the bidirectionallyviolent group only.
Percentage of IPV within the total sample= 34%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 64%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 71.2%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within thesevere IPV sample = 56.6%

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 3. The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in school and university
samplesStudy
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
33, 281-290. doi:
10.1002/ab.20199

Texas- Mex Am:
65.5% Dating
13.3% Engaged
21.2% Married
Ciudad Juarez:
82.3% Dating
5.6% Engaged
12.0% Married
Race:
N/R
Income/SES:
N/RAge:
M age:New Hampshire = 19.5
yrs
Texas- non Mex = 21.2
yrs
Texas- Mex Am = 21.6
yrs
Ciudad Juarez = 19.9
yrs
Geography:
Mexico, Texas, andNew Hampshire

Paso, Texas
Technological
University, and the
University of New
Hampshire.
These are the first four
samples assessed with
the International Dating
Violence Study Survey.
The CTS2 was used tomeasure violence.

New Hampshire Sample (n = 267)
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 69.7%
Texas: Non-Mexican Sample (n = 62)
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 71.0%
Texas: Mexican American Sample (n = 95)
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 72.6%
Mexico Sample (n = 130)
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 73.8%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 28.8%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 9.8%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 19.0%
Percentage of MFPV within the severe IPVsample = 13.7%
Percentage of FMPV within the severe IPVsample = 29.8%
New Hampshire Sample (n = 267)
Percentage of MFPV within the IPV

8PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 3. The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in school and university
samplesStudy
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
sample = 9.7%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 20.6%
Texas: Non-Mexican Sample (n = 62)
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 12.9%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 16.1%
Texas: Mexican American Sample (n = 95)
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 7.4%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 20.0%
Mexico Sample (n = 130)
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 10.0%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 16.2%
Other/Summary:-Percentage of men who carried out one ormore of the 12 acts assessed by the CTS =30%-Percentage of women who carried out one
or more of the 12 acts assessed by the CTS= 34.6%-Percentage of entire sample (n = 1,541)
who carried out one or more of the 12 acts
9

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 3. The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in school and university
samplesStudy
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Prospero, M. (2008).
The effect ofcoercion on
aggression andmental health amongreciprocally violent
couples. Journal of
Family Violence, 23,
195-202. doi:
10.1007/s10896-0079143-6

n = 609
Men =
248
Women
= 361

Sample type:College sample;
university students
Couple status:
82.3% not cohabitating
17.7 cohabitating
Required to have an
intimate relationshipwithinthe past year that lasted
at least 3 months
Race:
29% White
27% Hispanic
24% Asian
18% African
American
2% Other
Income/SES:
N/RAge:
M age = 21.4 yrs
Geography:
Utah

Cross-sectional design;
The CTS2 and the
Revised Controlling
Behaviors Scale wereused to assess forviolence and to creategroups.

assessed by the CTS = 33.7%-Among the 205 couples with severe
aggression, Bidirectional violence was aless common occurrence.
Percentage of IPV within the total sample= 47%
Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 53%
Used Johnson’s proposed IPV typology(2001) to form categories:-SCV (situational couple violence) bothpartners are violent and low in coercive
control-IT (intimate terrorism) one partner isviolent and controlling and the otherpartner can be violent or not-VR (violent resistance) requires bothpartners to be violent but only one partner
is violent and controlling-MVC (mutual violent control) requires
both partners to be violent and high incoercive control
Percentage within the IPV sample:
Percentage reporting SCV = 68%
Percentage reporting IT = 7%
Percentage reporting VR = 6.7%
Percentage reporting MVC = 18.3%
Other/Summary:

10

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 3. The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in school and university
samplesStudy
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Swahn, M., Alemdar,M., & Whitaker, D.
(2010).
Nonreciprocal andreciprocal dating
violence and injury
occurrence among
urban youth. Western
Journal of
Emergency
Medicine, 11(3), 264268. Retrieved from:http://escholarship.org/c/item/7s77g3gr

n=
4,131
Analyses
restricte
d to
1,158
who
reporteddatingviolence
Boys =
486
Girls =
570

Sample type:Middle/High school
sample Public school
students from 16 schools
who were in grades 7, 9,
11, 12. All students
were living in a highrisk community
Couple status:
N/R
Race:
N/R
Income/SES:
N/R
Age:
N/R
Geography:

Cross-sectional design;
Data from YouthViolence Survey.
Dating violence
perpetration andvictimization wereassessed through two
identical 10-item scales
to determine if
participants had
experienced certain
forms of violence in thepast 12 months.
Response options foreach scale were as
follows: never, 1-3 times,
4-9 times, and 10 or more
11

-Participants in the mutual violent control(MVC) group were significantly more
likely to report higher physicalperpetration, psychological perpetration,and sexual perpetration compared to thosein the situational couple violence group(SCV).
-Participants in the MVC group were more
likely to report higher physical injuries
than those in the SCV group-Participants in the MVC group weresignificantly more likely to report higher
anxiety, depression, hostility, somatic
symptom, than those in the SVC group.
Percentage of IPV within the total sample= 25.5%Percentage of no IPV within the total
sample = 74.5%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 11.5%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 45.1%
Percentage of boys reporting Bidirectional
IPV within the total sample = 4.6%
Percentage of girls reporting Bidirectional
IPV within the total sample = 6.9%
Percentage of boys reporting Bidirectional
IPV within the IPV sample = 38.9%

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 3. The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in school and university
samplesStudy
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
High-risk, urban school
district in US

times.

Percentage of girls reporting Bidirectional
IPV within the IPV sample= 50.4%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional within the
total sample = 14%
Percentage of Unidirectional within the
IPV sample = 54.9%
Percentage of MFPV only within the total
sample = 4.5%
Percentage of FMPV only within the total
sample = 9.6%
Percentage of MFPV only within the IPVsample = 17.5%
Percentage of FMPV only within the IPVsample = 37.4%

Testa, M., Hoffman,n = 499

Sample type:

Other/Summary:-There were no statistical significant
differences in terms of reciprocity andparticipants’ race/ethnicity or grade level.
-Reciprocity was associated with thefrequency of violence (p < .0001) and of
injury occurrence (p < .00001), withreciprocal violence associated with more
frequent violence and greater injury
occurrence.
Cohort-sequential design; Percentage reporting IPV within the total
12

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 3. The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in school and university
samplesStudy
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
J. H., & Leonard, K.
Women
E. (2011). Female
only
intimate partner
violence perpetration:
Stability andpredictors of mutual
and nonmutual
aggression across thefirst year of college.
Aggressive Behavior,
37(4), 362-373.
doi:10.1002/ab.20391

College sample
College women
freshmen who wererecruited fromhouseholds in Erie
County, NY, at the timeof high school
graduation. The
subsample consisted ofwomen from the 2005,
2006, and 2007 cohorts
Couple status:
N/R
Race:
93% White
Income/SES:Median householdincome = $75,000
Age:
N/R
Geography:
New York

Archival analysis of data
gathered fromparticipants who werepart of a larger study (n =5,978) that
tested the impact of aparent-based intervention
designed to reduce
college heavy episodic
drinking(HED) and sexual assault[see Testa et al., 2010].
Physical aggression wasmeasured with 5 minor
violence and 6 severe
violence items from theCTS2.

sample = 35%
Percentage reporting no IPV within the
total sample = 65%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 20%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 57%
Percentages of IPV within the 99 mutually
violent couples:-68.7% reported more frequent female-tomale physical aggression-24.2% reported equal amounts-7.1% reported higher levels of male-tofemale aggression
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 15%
Percentage of MFPV within the total
sample = 1%
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 14%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 43%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 3%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPV

13

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 3. The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence as reported in school and university
samplesStudy
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
sample = 41%
Other/Summary:-Aggressive acts were more frequent when
the aggression was mutual, suggesting thatreciprocity contributes to escalation andmaintenance of violence.

14

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 4: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from clinical populations
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Abbreviations:
IPV: Intimate Partner Violence
MFPV/UM: Male to Female perpetrated violence
FPP: Female primary perpetrator (type of mutual violence)
SYM: symmetrical

FMPV/UF: Female to Male perpetrated violence
MPV: Mutual Partner Violence
MPP: Male primary perpetrator (type of mutual violence)

Table 4: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from clinical populations
ReferenceCascardi, M.,
Langhinrichsen, J., &Vivian, D. (1992).
Marital aggression:
Impact, injury, andhealth correlates forhusbands and wives.
Archives of Internal
Medicine, 152, 11781184.
doi:10.1001/archinte.
152.6.1178

Nn = 93
Couplesseeking
maritaltherapy
Men =
93
Women
= 93

Vivian, D.,
LanghinrichsenRohling, J. (1994)

n = 145
Couplesseeking

Sample Characteristics
Sample type:
Clinical sample;
Couples who sought
marital therapy at auniversity marital clinic
Couple status:
MarriedM marriage length = 12
yrs
Race:
N/R
Income/SES:
M income = $48,051
Age:
M age Husbands = 38yrs
M age Wives = 35 yrs
Geography:
Stony Brook, NY
Sample type:
Clinical sample;
Couples who sought

Methods/Design
All couples seeking
therapy during the time
period in question wererecruited for the current
study.
During their first visit to
the clinic, each memberof the couple separately
completed a clinicalinterview and a survey
packet. The self-reportpacket contained a 29item modification of the
Conflict Tactics Scale
which was used to assess
violence

Results
Percentage of clinic sample reporting IPV= 71%Percentage of clinic sample reporting no
IPV = 29%
Bidirectional :Percentage reporting Bidirectional IPV
within the IPV sample = 86%
Unidirectional
Percentage reporting Unidirectional IPV
within the IPV sample = 14%
Percentage of MFPV only within the IPVsample = 7%
Percentage of FMPV only within the IPVsample = 7%

Cross-sectional sample of Percentage of clinic sample reporting IPV
couples seeking marital= 76.5%
therapy;
Percentage of clinic sample reporting no1

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 4: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from clinical populations
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Are bi-directionallyviolent couples
mutually victimized?
A gender sensitive
comparison. Violence
and Victims, 9, 107124. Retrieved
from:
http://www.springerp
ub.com/product/0886
6708#.TwoAKNX6fIU

maritaltherapy
Men =
145
Women
= 145
n = 111
coupleswho
reported
IPV

marital therapy at auniversity marital clinic
Couple status:
MarriedRace:
N/R
Income/SES:
N/R
Age:
N/R
Geography:
Stony Brook, NY

Multidimensional
assessment of physicalvictimization; A
modification of the CTS
was used to assess
violence.

IPV = 23.5%
Bidirectional: (n = 57)
Percentage reporting Bidirectional IPV
within the total sample = 39%
Percentage reporting Bidirectional IPV
within the IPV sample = 51%
Three different groups of Bidirectionallyviolent couples were identified:
Highly victimized wife (HVW) (n = 15)
Percentage within the total sample = 10%
Percentage within the IPV sample = 14%n = 34
coupleswho
reportedno IPV

Mutually low (Mut/Low) (n = 32)
Percentage within the total sample = 22%
Percentage within the IPV sample = 29%
Highly victimized husband (HVH) (n = 10)
Percentage within the total sample = 7%
Percentage within the IPV sample = 9%
Unidirectional: (n = 54)
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 37%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 49%
Other/Summary:-HVW reported greater partner verbal
2PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 4: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from clinical populations
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
hostility and higher frequency of and morenegative impact from the psychologicalvictimization than their husbands, and thencouples in the Mut/Low victimization andnon aggressive groups. But their reports
did not differ from the HVH group.
-HVH group showed a trend toward
reporting lower levels of maritalsatisfaction compared to couples in the
Mut/Low group-Thus highly victimized spouses regardlessof gender were negatively affected by themarital violence.
-Marriages of the two highly victimized
groups did differ: HVH reported
experiencing more frequent psychologicalabuse than their wives, both spouses in the
HVH group reported equivalent levels ofpartner verbal hostility and similar negative
impact from the psychologicalvictimization. These findings did not occur
in the HVW group which suggests that
HVW’s tend to be more “unilaterally”
victimized than HVH.
-No gender differences were observed in
the Mut/Low group. They did report more
marital and individual distress than spousesin the clinic nonaggressive group. They
were more similar in their satisfaction,
impact of partner psychological abuse, anddysphoria to spouses in the highly
3

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 4: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from clinical populations
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

LanghinrichsenRohling, J., Neidig,
P., & Thorn, G.
(1995). Violent
marriages: genderdifferences in levelsof current violenceand past abuse.
Journal of Family
Violence, 10(2), 159176. doi:
10.1007/BF02110598

n =199military
couplesmandateto IPV
treatmen
t
Men =
199
Women
= 199

Sample type:
Military sample;
Military couples
mandated for marital
violence treatment
Couple status:
MarriedRace:husbands
48.7% African
American
47.7% Caucasian
3.5% missing
wives
46.7% African
American
47.2% Caucasian
6% missing
Income/SES:
N/R
Age:
Men M age = 26 yrs
Women M age = 25 yrs
Geography:

Cross sectional design;
Couples wereinterviewed conjointly
about past experiences
about violence, In
addition, a modificationof the CTS was
administered to bothspousesvictimized subgroups than to thenonaggressive clinic spouses.
-HVW, Mut/Low, and HVH couples
reported similar and elevated levels ofdepressive symptomology which weresignificantly higher than those of couples
in the nonaggressive group.
Percentage of mandated DV sample
reporting IPV = 98%
Percentage of mandated DV sample
reporting no IPV = 2%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 83%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 15%
Percentage of MFPV only within the IPVsample =12%
Percentage of FMPV only within the IPVsample = 3%

4

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 4: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from clinical populations
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

McCarroll, J.
E., Ursano, R. J., Fan,
Z., & Newby, J. H.
(2004). Patterns ofmutual andnonmutual spousal
abuse in the Army
(1998-2002).
Violence and Victims,
19, 453-468.
Retrieved from:http://www.springerp
ub.com/n=
20, 959
victims
in 5
years

N/R
Sample type
US Army personnel andtheir spouses
Couple status:
marriedRace:
40.1% White
45% Black
10.9% Hispanic
3% Asian/PI
0.9% Am
Indian/Alaskan Native
Income/SES:
N/RAge:
M age = 26 yrs
Geography:
N/R

Cross-sectional design;
Retrospective
examination of Domestic
violence cases from the
ACR (a database) ofenlisted victims andoffenders from the years
1998-2002
Coders categorized thecases as mutual sameday, mutual different
day, or victimized only

Mutual same-day abuse: both partners
physically aggressive towards one anotherin the same day
Different day mutual: one partner
aggressed one day and the other partner
aggressed another day
Percentage of incidents in which Women
were victimized = 63.4%
Percentage of incidents in which Men werevictimized = 36.6%
42% of the Incidents were classified as bidirectional (same day or different day)
Bidirectional:
Same Day Mutual Abuse:
Percentage of same day mutual abuse =39%
Percentage of Black victims = 49%
Percentage of White = 38%
Percentage of Hispanic = 10%
Different Day Mutual Abuse:
Percentage of different day mutual abuse =3%
Percentage of Black victims = 57%
Percentage of White = 32%
Percentage of Hispanic = 8.5%
Unidirectional:

5

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 4: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from clinical populations
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Percentage of incidents that were
Unidirectional = 58%
Percentage of Women victims of nonmutual abuse = 73%
Percentage of Men victims of non-mutual
abuse = 27%
Percentage of Black victims of non-mutual
abuse = 42%
Percentage of White Victims of nonmutual abuse = 42%

Drapkin, M. L.,
McCrady, B. S.,
Swingle, J. M., &Epstein, E. E. (2005).
Exploringbidirectional couple
violence in a clinicaln = 109
couples
Men =
109
Women
= 109

Sample type:
Clinical sample;
Women recruited fromthe community who
were
diagnosedwith alcohol

Other/Summary:-The number of non-mutual abuse cases
was three times higher for womencompared to men-There were higher rates of non whitevictims of same day mutual abuse,different day mutual abuse, and non mutual
abuse than White victims.
-In mutual abuse cases, women were more
severely abused than men.
-Non-mutual physical abuse was more
severe than mutual abuse.
Cross-sectional design;
Percentage of couples reporting IPV = 61%
Randomized clinical trial Percentage of couples reporting no IPV =comparing individual and 39%
couple treatment for
women alcoholics.
Bidirectional:
A modification of thePercentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
CTS was used to assess
total sample = 41%
6

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 4: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from clinical populations
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
sample of female
alcoholics. Journal ofStudies on Alcohol,
66, 213-219.
Retrieved from:http://alcoholstudies.r
utgers.edu/journal/ind
ex.html

abuse and their partners
Couple status:
committed relationships
for 1 yr or more
88% married
Race:
96% White
Income/SES:Median income forwomen was $76,000
Median householdincome for NJ is$55,146
Age:
Men M age = 48.2 yrs
Women M age = 44.9
yrs
Geography:
New Jersey

violence

Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
IPV sample = 68%
Percentage of women minor, men minor
IPV within the IPV sample = 29%, within
the total sample = 17%
Percentage of women severe, men severe
within the IPV sample = 15%, within the
total sample = 9%
Percentage of women severe, men minor
within the IPV sample = 21%, within the
total sample = 13%
Percentage of women minor, men severe
within the IPV sample = 3%, within the
total sample = 2%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 19%
Percentage of MFPV within the total
sample = 9%
Percentage of FMPV within the total
sample = 10%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the IPV sample = 32%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPVsample = 15%, within the Unidirectional
IPV sample = 47%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPVsample = 16%, within the Unidirectional

7

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 4: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from clinical populations
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

Taylor, L., & Pittman,
J. F. (2005). Sex of
spouse abuse anddirectionality ofabuse as predictors of
personal distress,
interpersonalfunctioning, andperceptions of family
climate. Journal of
Family Violence, 20,
329-339.
doi: 10.1007/s10896005-6609-2

n=
7,253
IPV
offender
s
Men =
5,222
Women
= 2,031

Sample type:
Military sample. All
were IPV offenders
treated by the US Air
Force from 1988-1996
75% of the offenders
were USAF personnel
and the remaining
offenders were spousesof USAF personnel.
Couple status:
N/R
Race:
64.6% White
27.1% Black,
5% Hispanic
2.9% Asian, and.4% American Indian
Income/SES:
Junior enlisted pay
grades accounted for
81.7% of the cases,
15.2% were “senior
enlisted,” 2.8% were“company-level
officers,” and .2% were“ﬁeld grade officers.”
Age:
M age = 27.5 yrs
Geography:

Cross-sectional design;
Archival analysis of datacollected between 1988
and 1996 by the US Air
Force Family Advocacy
Program.
Severity of aggression
was a clinical assessment
originally measured on a
4-point scale: 1 wasreserved for cases thatwere not substantiated asabusive, 2 indicated low
severity, 3 indicatedmoderate severity, and 4
indicated severe severity.
Trained clinicians used
speciﬁc criteria to makethis designation.

IPV sample = 52%
Percentage of sample reporting IPV =100%
Percentage of sample reporting no IPV =0%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the
total sample = 42%
Percentage of men Bidirectional IPV
offenders = 32%
Percentage of women Bidirectional IPV
offenders = 68%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the total sample = 58%
Percentage of men Unidirectional IPV
offenders = 68%
Percentage of women Unidirectional IPV
offenders = 32%
Other/Summary:-Bidirectional abuse was linked with anincreased incidence of repeat offense andto an increased likelihood that the offendergrew up in an abusive family-Offenders who were also victims reported
less distress and unhappiness thanoffenders in the aggressor only role
-Offenders involved in Bidirectional

8

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 4: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from clinical populations
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
National

Goldenson, J.,
Geffner, R., Foster, S.
L., & Clipson, C. R.
(2007). Female
domestic violence
offenders: Their
attachment security,
trauma symptoms,
and personality
organization. Violenc
e and Victims, 22(5),532-545.
doi:10.1891/0886670
07782312186

n = 65
Women
Offender group= 33
Clinicalcomparisongroup =
32

Sample type:
Clinical sample;
Women offenders
attending courtmandated domestic
violence groups(offender group) andwomen who soughtclinical treatment from avariety of different
agencies or privately
practicing
psychotherapists in San
Diego County (clinicalcomparison group).
Couple status:
Offender group:
33% currently single,
0% dating, and48.5% married or
cohabiting with apartner
Clinical comparisongroup:
31% currently single,
3% dating, and62.5% married or
cohabiting with a

Cross-sectional design;
Analyses of variance andchi-square analyses
showed that the offendergroup and clinicalcomparison group did not
differ in age, ethnicity,
education, SES, numberof treatment sessions, or
relationship status.
Participant inclusion
criteria: (a) Participants
were heterosexual
women;(b) They were 18 years
old or older; (c) They had
been in a married or
cohabiting relationshipwith their partner within
the last 2 years (for theoffender group, “partner”
referred to the personwith whom they had thedomestic violence
incident that precipitatedmandated treatment); (d)They were within theirfirst 16 weeks of
9aggression perceived more conflict but lessindependence in the family than
Unidirectional offenders
Percentage of offender sample reporting
IPV = 100%
Percentage of offender sample reporting no
IPV = 0%
Bidirectional:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within theoffender sample = 55%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within
the offender sample = 45%
Percentage of MFPV only = 21%
Percentage of FMPV only = 24%
Other/Summary:-Within the offender group: 24% of these
women were dominant aggressors(primarily initiated violence on mostoccasions for reasons other than selfdefense), 55% experienced Bidirectional
aggression (both offender and partner wereequally responsible for violence in therelationship), and 21% reported being
largely victims of aggression.

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 4: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from clinical populations
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics

McCarroll, J. E., Fan,
Z., & Bell, N. S.
(2009). Alcohol use
in nonmutual andmutual domestic
violence in the U.S.

n=25,526
victimsof IPVMen =partner.
Race:
Offender group:
42.4% White,
21.2% African
American, 15.2%
Hispanic, and21.1% Other
Clinical comparisongroup:
62.5% White,
15.6% African
American, 6.3%
Hispanic, and15.6% Other
Income/SES:
N/R
Age:
Offender group:
M age = 30.9 yrs
Clinical comparisongroup:
M age = 32.0 yrs
Geography:
San Diego, CA
Sample type:
Military sample
U.S. Army enlisted
soldiers and theirspouses who
experienced an IPVtreatment; (e) They had
at least a sixth-gradeeducation; and (f)Participants did notpresent with symptomsof an active thought
disorder.
The CTS2 was used toassess violence.

Cross-sectional design;
Archival analysis ofincident data from 19982004 from the ACR, aconfidential victim-based
database of incidents of
10

Percentage of sample reporting IPV =100%
Percentage of sample reporting no IPV =0%
Bidirectional:

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 4: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from clinical populations
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
army: 1998-2004.
Violence & Victims,
24(3), 364-379.
doi: 10.1891/08866708.24.3.36

9,342
incident during fiscal
Women years 1998–2004= 16,184 Couple status:
MarriedRace:
41.1% White,
43.5% Black,
11% Hispanic,
3.1% Asian/PacificIslander,
1% American Indian/
Alaskan Native, and.4% Missing
Income/SES:
N/R
Age:
Men M age = 26.7 yrs
Women M age = 25.9
yrs
Geography:
National sample

child and spousemaltreatment. The ACR
includes demographic
data on the offender andvictim, the type andseverity of maltreatment,
whether alcohol or drugs
were involved in theincident, whether theincident happened on or
off the military
installation, and otherinformation. The severityof maltreatment wascoded as mild, moderate,or severe.

Percentage of incidents that were
Bidirectional = 36%
Percentage of mutual incidents in which
women were victimized = 50%
Percentage of mutual incidents in which
men were victimized = 50%
Percentage of mutual abuse victims thatwere White = 38%
Percentage of mutual abuse victims thatwere Black = 48%
Unidirectional:
Percentage of incidents that were
Unidirectional = 64%
Unidirectional incidents of MFPV = 72%
Unidirectional incidents of FMPV = 28%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV sample
victims who were White = 43%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV sample
victims who were Black = 41%
Other/Summary:-The number of men and women victims inmutual abuse was identical (n = 4,883
each), but women were overrepresented fornonmutual abuse: 72% of nonmutual abuse
victims were women (n = 11,301).

11

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 4: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from clinical populations
Study
N
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics-Across the study period, there was an
overall decrease of 23% for nonmutual and
57% decrease for mutual abuse incidents.
-When only the offender was drinking
during the incident, the offenders’ rates of
non-mutual abuse were over four times
higher than the rates of mutual abuse, t =20.94, df = 12, p < .0001.
-When only the victim was drinking, therates were significantly higher for mutual
abuse (mean rate = .19/1,000) than for
nonmutual abuse (mean rate = .30/1,000).
-When neither was drinking, the rates of
nonmutual abuse were about double therate of mutual abuse.
-Offender drinking was associated withmore severe violence in both mutual andnonmutual abuse incidents but particularly
in nonmutual abuse incidents. When theoffender was drinking, 12.8% (n = 541) of
nonmutual abuse incidents involved injury.
-For mutual abuse incidents, Whites (22%)
and Hispanics (23%) were more likely tobe drinking than were Blacks (15%).

12

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 5: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from criminal justice orpolice-related settings
ReferenceN

Sample Characteristics

Methods/Design

Abbreviations:
IPV: Intimate Partner Violence
MFPV/UM: Male to Female perpetrated violence
FPP: Female primary perpetrator (type of mutual violence)
SYM: symmetrical

Results

FMPV/UF: Female to Male perpetrated violence
MPV: Mutual Partner Violence
MPP: Male primary perpetrator (type of mutual violence)

Table 5: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from criminal justice or police-related settings
ReferenceN

SampleCharacteristics

Methods/Design

Results

Busch, A. L., &Rosenberg, M. S.
(2004).
Comparing
women and men
arrested fordomestic
violence: A
preliminary
report. Journal of
Family Violence,
19(1), 49-57.
doi: 10.1023/B:J
OFV.0000011582.05558.2en = 90arresteesfor
Domestic
Violence
between1996 and
1998

Sample type:Justice/Legal Sample
Court mandated toattend DV treatment
programArrested for IPV
Couple status:
N/R
Race:
77% Caucasian
11% Hispanic
7% African Am,
2% Asian Am
1% Other
Income/SES:
N/R

Cross-sectional
design; Archival
analysis of datacollected before
treatment program.
Injury was measured
utilizing the method
described byLanghinrichsenRohling et al. (1995)
and the CTS wasused to assess
violence.

Percentage of the sample reporting a current arrest for
IPV = 100%
Percentage of sample reporting no current arrest for
IPV = 0%

Men =
45
Women
= 45

1

Percentage of Men who had a prior domestic violence
arrest within the total sample = 29%
Percentage of Women who had a prior domestic
violence arrest within the total sample = 14%
Percentage of Men using severe violence within the
total sample = 43%
Percentage of Women using severe violence within the
total sample = 46%

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 5: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from criminal justice orpolice-related settings
ReferenceN

Sample Characteristics

Methods/Design

Results

Percentage of Men who inflicted severe injuries within
the total sample = 14%
Percentage of Women who inflicted severe injuries
within the total sample = 12%

Age:
N/R
Geography:
CA

Bidirectional:
Percentage of Men who reported or showed evidenceof victimization during their arrest = 7% (n = 3) or 3%of total sample
Percentage of Women who reported or showed
evidence of victimization during their arrest = 24% (n= 11) or 12% of total sample
Other/Summary:-On average, men used a greater number of severely
violent tactics (e.g., punching, kicking, choking, etc.)
in the arrest incident than women (2.27 versus 1.44).
-However, men and women did not differ in theirlikelihood of using at least one form of severe
violence. 92% of women and 87% of men used some
type of severe violence when they assaulted theirpartner and were arrested.
-There were no differences in the percentages ofwomen and men who inﬂicted severe to extreme levels
of injury on their partners. When women inﬂicted
severe injuries on their partners, in most cases theyused a weapon or object. In contrast, the men who

2PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 5: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from criminal justice orpolice-related settings
ReferenceN

Sample Characteristics

Methods/Design

Results

inﬂicted this same degree of injury were more likely to
use their bodies alone to assault their victims.
Muftic, L. R.,
Bouffard, L. A.,& Bouffard, J. A.
(2007). An
exploratory
analysis of victim
precipitation
among men andwomen arrested
for intimate
partner violence.
Feminist
Criminology,
2(4), 327-346.
doi:
10.1177/1557085
107306429

n = 203
cases
Men =
123
arrestees
Women
= 80
arrestees

Sample type:
Criminal sample;
domestic violence
arrestees who had
been court ordered tomonitoring by the
local community
corrections agency
for an assessment of
their need fordomestic violencetreatment
Couple status:
All were in or had
had an intimate
heterosexual
relationship
63.6% current orformer dating
relationship
36.4% current orformer spousal
relationship
Race:

Cross-sectional
design;Archival analysis ofdata collected as partof a processevaluation of acommunity
corrections agency ina medium-sized city
in North Dakota.
The narrative of thepolice reportprovided a
description of theincident that wasused to determine
which party (arrestee
or partner) first usedphysical violence.

3

Percentage of the sample reporting a current arrest for
IPV = 100%
Percentage of sample reporting no current arrest for
IPV = 0%Percentage of arrestees who were the first to use
physical violence =70%
Percentage of the arrests that involved the partner
initiating the physical violence =14%
Percentage of the arrests that fell into the “unable todetermine” category = 16%
When men were arrested, 13% said their partner
initiated the IPVWhen women were arrested, 15.8% said their partner
initiated the IPV
Arrest (dual vs. sole) and precipitation-When the arrestee initiated the violence, they were theonly individuals arrested in 86% of the cases.
Otherwise, both partners were arrested-When the partner initiated the violence, the informant
was the only individual arrested in only 32% of thecasesPASK#3 Online Tables - Table 5: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from criminal justice orpolice-related settings
ReferenceN

Sample Characteristics

Methods/Design

80% of arrestees
were White
Income/SES:
N/RAge:
M age = 30 yrs
Geography:
Medium size city inNorth Dakota

Robertson, K., &Murachver, T.
(2007). It takes
two to tangle:
Gender symmetryn = 172
67
universitySample type:
University,
Community, andJustice/Legal sample
Couple status:

Results

Other/Summary:- Women partners of men arrestees were significantly
less likely to have a prior history of intimate violence(4.8%) compared to men partners of women arrestees(19.4%), χ2 = 9.22, p < .01.
-No significant differences by arrestee gender were
found in terms of which partner initiated physicalviolence (χ 2 = .57, p = .75) or whether injuries werenoted on the arrestee (χ 2 = .40, p = .53).
-The arrestee was significantly more likely to suffer
visible injury in incidents where the partner had beenusing alcohol (χ 2 = 5.20, p < .05).
-In addition, arrestee injury was more likely when thearrestee and partner were White.
-Cases in which the partner was the only party to suffer
visible injuries were extremely unlikely to produce adual-arrest response (only 1.2% of incidents). In
contrast, dual arrest occurred in more than 65% ofcases in which the arrestee suffered visible injuries
noted by police (χ2 = 80.37, p < .01).
Cross sectional
design;Participants wererecruited throughnotices displayed at4

Percentage of sample reporting IPV = 46.4%
Percentage of sample reporting no IPV = 53.6%
Overall rates of Bidirectional violence:
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the total sample

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 5: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from criminal justice orpolice-related settings
ReferenceN

Sample Characteristics

Methods/Design

Results

in intimate
partnerviolence. Basic &Applied Social
Psychology, 29(2), 109-118.
doi:10.1080/0197
3530701331247

students(Men =
31
Women= 36),

N/R
Race:
Student = 83.6%
Caucasian,General = 92.4%
Caucasian,
Incarcerated = 64.1%
Caucasian
Income/SES:
N/R
Age:
N/R
Geography:
New Zealandthe university, within
the community, andin localorganizations’newsletters. The
incarcerated sample
was recruited withthe ethical approval
and assistance of the
New ZealandDepartment ofCorrections whohelped inform
inmates about the
study.
The CTS2 was used
to assess violence.

= 24.4%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the IPV sample= 52.2%66
generalsampleparticipa
nts (Men= 30
Women= 36),
39
incarcerated
participa
nts (Men= 24
Women= 15).

Overall rates of Unidirectional violence:
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within the total
sample = 22%
Percentage of MFPV within the total sample = 5.2%
Percentage of FMPV within the total sample = 16.8%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within the IPVsample = 47%
Percentage of MFPV within the IPV sample = 11%
Percentage of FMPV within the IPV sample = 36%
Men (n = 85)
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the total sample= 27.1%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within the total
sample = 22.4%
Percentage of MFPV within the total sample = 2.4%
Percentage of FMPV within the total sample = 20.0%
Women (n = 87)
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the total sample= 21.8%5

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 5: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from criminal justice orpolice-related settings
ReferenceN

Sample Characteristics

Methods/Design

Results

Percentage of Unidirectional violence within the total
sample = 21.8%
Percentage of MFPV within the total sample = 8.0%
Percentage of FMPV within the total sample = 13.8%
Students (n = 67):
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the student
sample = 13.4%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the student IPVsample = 31%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within the student
sample = 29.8%
Percentage of victimization within the student sample= 16.4%
Percentage of perpetration within the student sample =13.4%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within the student
IPV sample = 69%
Percentage of victimization of IPV within the student
IPV sample = 38%
Percentage of perpetration of IPV within the student
IPV sample = 31%
General (n = 66)::
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the general

6

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 5: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from criminal justice orpolice-related settings
ReferenceN

Sample Characteristics

Methods/Design

Results

sample = 19.7%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the IPV general
sample = 56.5%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within the general
sample = 15.1%
Percentage of Victimization within the general sample= 10.6%Percentage of Perpetration within the general sample =4.5%
Percentage of Unidirectional within the IPV general
sample = 43.4%
Percentage of Victimization within the IPV general
sample = 30.4%
Percentage of Perpetration within the IPV general
sample = 13%
Incarcerated (n = 39):
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within theincarcerated sample = 51.3%
Percentage of Bidirectional IPV within the IPV
incarcerated sample = 71.4%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within theincarcerated sample = 20.5%
Percentage of Victimization within the incarcerated

7

PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 5: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from criminal justice orpolice-related settings
ReferenceN

Sample Characteristics

Methods/Design

Results

sample = 15.4%
Percentage of Perpetration within the incarcerated
sample = 5.1%
Percentage of Unidirectional IPV within the IPV
incarcerated sample = 28.6%
Percentage of victimization within the incarcerated
IPV sample = 21.4%
Percentage of perpetration within the incarcerated IPVsample = 7.1%
Other/Summary:-The percentage of participants reporting being a
victim or perpetrator did not vary as a function ofsample; but the incarcerated sample was significantly
more likely to report Bidirectional violence comparedto the general and student samples
Capaldi, D. M.,
Shortt, J. W.,
Kim, H. K.,
Wilson, J.,
Crosby, L., &Tucci, S. (2009).
Official incidents
of domestic
violence: Types,n = 206men
initially
recruitedin 4thgrade.

Sample type:
Archival collectionof criminal activity
reports from acommunity sample.
Men originally
recruited for theTime 1, n Oregon Youth Study= 158,
Couple status:

Longitudinal design;
Investigation ofindividuals who had
at least one incidenceof violence in whicha police report was
filed; Combined
these with archival
analysis of

8

The relative balance of the men’s and women’scontributions to the physical fight during the incidents
was coded on a 7-point scale from all or almost all theman (7) to all or almost all the woman (1). This rating
scale was created by Capaldi, Shortt, and Wilson,
1999.
The physical aggression arrest incidents (n = 47) werecoded as follows:PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 5: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from criminal justice orpolice-related settings
ReferenceN

Sample Characteristics

Methods/Design

injury, andassociations with
nonofficial couple
aggression.
Violence andVictims, 24(4),502-519. doi:
10.1891/08866708.24.4.502

Time 2, n= 148,
Time 3, n= 161
men andtheir
womenpartners

Married:18% at T1 to 42% at
T3;Cohabiting:
37% at T1 to 38% at
T3;
Dating or engaged:
45% at T1 to 20% at
T3.
Race:
Predominantly EuroAmerican
Income/SES:
64% of the families’
annual income wasless than $20,000
Age:
Women M age =20.8 yrs at T1, 23.1
yrs at T2, and 24.9
yrs at T3.
Geography:
Pacific Northwest

previously collected
data from the OYS
longitudinal study.
47 IPV arrest
incidents weretracked (85% werearrest of OYS men,
6% were arrests of
their womenpartners, and 9%
involved the arrest ofboth partners) andpolice reports were
examined. Levels of
nonofficial violence
were also available
from ongoing
longitudinalassessments.

9

Results

Percentage coded “all or almost all from the man” =51%
Percentage coded as “being more the man than the
woman” = 30%
Percentage coded as “mutual” = 11%
Percentage coded as “being more the woman than theman” = 6%
Percentage coded “all or almost all the woman” = 2%
Overall percentage considered to be bi-directional =47%
Overall percentage considered to be uni-directional =53%
Regarding first physical contact:
Percentage of cases where men made the first physicalcontact = 66%
Percentage of cases where women made the firstphysical contact = 15%
Percentage of the cases that were ambiguous for firstphysical contact = 17%
2% of these cases did not have these data available forcodingPASK#3 Online Tables - Table 5: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from criminal justice orpolice-related settings
ReferenceN

Sample Characteristics

Methods/Design

Results

Fusco, R. A.
(2010). Intimate
partner violence
in interracial
couples: A
comparison towhite and ethnic
minoritymonoracial
couples. Journalof Interpersonal
Violence, 25(10),1785-1800. doi:
10.1177/0886260
509354510

n=
1, 562
couples
involved
in apolicerecorded
IPV
event

Sample type:
Large sample ofcouples involved in
IPV events in which
police were called
and responded toscene
Couple status:
N/R
Race:
Of the couples, 279
were Interracial
880 were same race,
Ethnic Minority and403 were same race,White
Income/SES:
N/R
Age:
N/R
Geography:
Fairly affluent
county in Suburban
population in
Northeast UnitedStates

Cross-sectional
design; Archival
analysis of databasefrom police
department.
Data were collectedby police officers
when they were
responding to IPVevents in the county.
The officers
thoroughlyinterviewed thevictim, perpetrator,
and any witnesses todetermine whether
the violence wasunidirectional (orhad a primary
aggressor) or
whether it was
mutual assault.
Mutual assault was
defined as events
where both couples
played an equal rolein perpetrating

Approximately 1562 IPV events were reported.

Men =
1,562
Women
= 1,562

10

Percentage of IPV by ethnicity of couple:
Interracial couples = 17.9%
White couples = 25.8%
Ethnic minority mono-racial couples = 56.3%
Bidirectional:
Percent of Bidirectional IPV by ethnicity of couple:
Interracial couples = 31.2%
White couples = 13.4%
Ethnic Minority = 16.2%
Unidirectional:
Percent of MFPV by ethinicity of couple:
Interracial couples = 87.0%
White couples = 83.4%
Ethnic Minority couples = 86.3%
Other/Summary:-When the violence within interracial couples wasconsidered to be mutual, almost half of the couples
consisted of an African American paired with a White.
-The odds ratios showed some differences between
interracial and ethnic
minority monoracial couples. Interracial couples weremore likely to have a history of prior abuse (OR =PASK#3 Online Tables - Table 5: The rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence in samples drawn from criminal justice orpolice-related settings
ReferenceN

Sample Characteristics

Methods/Design

Results

violence. Mutual
assault cases did notinclude events inwhich violence wasused in self-defense.

2.60), engage in mutual assault (OR = 2.36), and havethe perpetrator arrested (OR = 1.71) than ethnic
minority monoracial couples.
-Interracial couples were more likely to engage inmutual assault than white couples, but 50% less likely
to use drugs or alcohol before the IPV event.

11

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 6: Meta-analytic results of associations between perpetrating and experiencing violence inrelationships
StudyN
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
Abbreviations:
IPV: Intimate Partner Violence
MFPV/UM: Male to Female perpetrated violence
FPP: Female primary perpetrator (type of mutual violence)
SYM: symmetrical

FMPV/UF: Female to Male perpetrated violence
MPV: Mutual Partner Violence
MPP: Male primary perpetrator (type of mutual violence)

Table 6: Meta-analytic results of associations between perpetrating and experiencing violence in relationships
ReferenceN

Sample Characteristics Methods/Design

Archer, J. (2000). Sex
differences inaggression between
heterosexual partners:
A meta-analytic
review. American
Psychological
Association
Psychological
Bulletin, 126, 651680. doi:
10.1037//00332909.126.5.651

n = 82
articlesJournalarticlesn = 56
Books orbookchapters
n=4
Dissertationsn = 15
Other
unpublishedsourcesn=7

Sample type:Meta-analysis
Married/dating partners
Couple status: 40 = M
proportion of sample
that were married or
cohabitating
Race:
N/R
Income/SES:
N/RAge:
M age = 25.3 yrs
Geography:
N/R

Meta-analysis

M
1

Results
Summary:-The proportions of men and women who
physically aggressed were highly correlated(and a least squares regression weighted by
the reciprocal of the variance indicated aneven higher association of R = .94) These
associations would be expected on the basisof the finding that physical aggression
between partners tends to be reciprocal
and/or bidirectional.
-Despite the high correlations, only the
proportion of physically aggressive men
was significantly (positively) correlatedwith the effect size for the sex differences,the proportion of physically aggressive
women was unrelated to the effect size.
-This supports the prediction that it is thelevel of men’s aggression that is associatedwith the variation in sex differences
obtained in different studies.

PASK#3 Online Tables – Table 6: Meta-analytic results of associations between perpetrating and experiencing violence inrelationships
StudyN
Sample Size
Method and Design
Results(full reference)and Characteristics
numberof menin eachsample =373
Mnumberof
women
in eachsample =412-Women were slightly more likely (d = .05) than men to use one or more acts ofphysical aggression and to use such acts
more frequently.
-Men were more likely (d = .15) to inflict
an injury, and overall, 62% of those injured
by a partner were women.
-There was a highly significant difference
both in the case of injuries, QB (1) = 120.9,
p < .0001; and in receiving medical care,
QB (1) = 39.8, p < .0001, indicating men’s
violence produces more physical effects
than does women’s violence.
-When measures were based on thephysical consequences of aggression(visible injuries or injuries requiring
medical treatment), men were more likely
than women to have injured their partners,
but again, effect sizes were relatively small(d = .15 and d =.08).

2